-6 


'  Book, 


I  TIIECLCGICAL  eEMlKAKY.I 

I    Prineetcii,  N.  J.  | 

I'j       Case,   Division   ^ 

SeCi.n  '"""V 


DEBATE 


CAMPBELLISM; 


HELD  AT  NASHVILLE,  TENNESSEE. 


IN  WHICH  THE  PRINCIPLES  OF  ALEXANDER  CAMPBELL  ARB 
CONFUTED,  AND  HIS  CONDUCT  EXAMINED. 


BY  OBADIAH  JENNINGS,  D.D. 


TO  WHICH  IS  PREFIXED, 

A  MEMOIR  OF  THE  AUTHOR, 
BY  REV.  M.  BROWN,  D.  D. 


PITTSBURGH: 

PRINTED  BY  D.  AND  M.  MACLEAN. 

1832. 


Entered  according  to  Act  of  Congress,  in  the  year  1832, 
By  Samuel  C.  Jennings, 
the  Clerk's  Office  of  the  District  Court  of  the  Western  District  of  Pa. 


CONTENTS, 


PART  I, 

Occasion  of  the  debate  explained,        -                    -  ,      -  32 

The  subject  of  faith  introduced,          -                    .  .  34 

Distinction  between  mysteries  and  mysticism,            -  .  37 

Historical  faith  examined,       -          -          -          -  -  38 

Necessity  of  Divine  influence,            -          •          •  -  43 

The  examination  of  faith,  continued,            ■•          -  -  60 

Mr.  C.'s  explanation  of  the  "  natural  man,"      -          -  -  G9 

His  ignorance  of  the  *'  spiritual  man,"          "         -  -  72 

PART  II. 

Mr.  C's  visit  to  Franklin  and  Columbia,  -  -  -  .  77 
His  return, — resumes  his  lectures, — invites  objections,  -  78 
The  pretensions  of  the  Reformer  examined,  .  -  80 
Defence  of  evangelical  denominations,  ...  84 
Explanation  of  the  terms  schism  and  heresy,  -  .  91 
War  and  bloodshed,  ascribed  to  the  true  cause,  -  .  97 
Mr.  C.  "  a  factionist,"  -  -  -  .  -  101 
"  shown  to  be  **  a  sectarian,"  .  -  .  .  107 
"  the  "  head  of  a  party,"  -  -  ,  -  108 
Every  true  teacher  of  religion  called  of  God, — ^the  subject  explained,  111 
Ordination  necessary,  -  -  -  .  -  116 
Mr.  C  shrinks  from  an  examination  of  the  "  new  version" — com- 
plains of  the  multiplicity  of  objections,        -          -  .  124 


His  qualifications  and  motives  for  undertaking  a  "  new  version,"  126 

His  slanderous  publication  concerning  the  American  Bible  Society,  131 

Tlie  deception  practised  by  the  compiler  of  the  new  version,  132 
The  term  ekklesia,  or  church,  examined,  vvith  a  notice  of  the 

compiler's  deception,  -  .  .  -  .  136 
The  Bishop's  imposition  in  translating  baptismos  and  baptisma, 

immersion;  and  baptizo,  baptize,  under  cover  of  other  names,  144 
Mr.  C.  subtititutes  "  Thompson,"  for  his  Presbyterian  Doctors,  in 

translatting  the  original  vrord  for  "Godhead,"  -  .  ,  I49 
Other  interpolations  from  Thompson,  to  evade  the  doctrine  of  the 

special  operation  of  the  Spirit  of  God,          -          .          .  151 

Follows  "Wakefield,"  on  the  inquiry  of  the  jailer,       -          -  157 

The  subject  of  being  born  again,  introduced,              -           .  159 

Mr.  C-  solicits,  through  friends,  a  proposition  for  discussion,  152 


IT 


COKTEKTS. 


PART  III. 

Mr.  C.  raises  objections  to  the  proposition  at  an  unseasonable  hoar,  1^2 
Misrepresents,  prevaricates,     -          -          -          .          .  164 
Either  wished  to  withdraw,  or  to  change  the  nature  of  the  inquiry,  165 
Mr.  C.  constrained  to  defend  his  doctrine,  but  asked  an  unreason- 
able concession,  which  was  granted,            -          -  168 
Commencement  of  the  discussion  on  the  question,  whether  to  be 
born  again  and  to  be  immersed,  are  the  same — the  uncharita- 
bleness  of  tlie  doctrine,         -  1G9 
The  doctrine  of  predestination  vindicated  against  the  incorrect 
statements  of  Mr.  C.            ...          -          -  172 

Tlie  proposition  examined  by  various  passages  of  the  word  of  God,  173 
Mr.  C.'s  arguments  answered,  by  showing  that  parts  of  some  pas- 
sages are  to  be  understood  figuratively,  and  otheY  parts  literally,  185 
The  Bishop  and  Nicodemus,     -          -          -          -          -  188 

The  proposition  farther  examined  by  the  sacred  scriptures,  190 
His  notices  of  the  "  ancient  fathers,"             -          -          -  202 
The  "  ancient  gospel"  partly  a  Popish  delusion,          -          -  203 
Ignorance  of  the  nature  of  the  Jewish  sacrifices  and  purga- 
tions,          -          -          -          -          -          -          -  205 

The  Bishop's  theory  of  regeneration,    -      .    -          -          -  209 
The  passages  on  which  he  founds  his  theory,  examined,         -  221 
The  Bishop  of  Betliany  more  erroneous  than  the  Bishop  of  Rome,  227 
Evangelical  Christians  agreed  that  baptism  is  not  absolutely  es- 
sential to  salvation,             -          -          -         -          .  229 

CONCLUSION. 

Mr.  C.'s  disinterestedness,       -----  234 

A  case  supposed,         ------  235 

Facts  from  the  Rsformer's  history,      -          -          -          ,  237 

His  means  and  labors  to  acquire  fame,  influence,  and  wealth,       -  238 

APPENDIX. 

Kote  A. — Mr.  C.'s  "  Christian  experience,"  and  advice  to  an  in- 

quirer,  -  -  :  -  -  -  •  243 
Note  B. — Under  obligations  to  Presbyterians,  -  -  246 
Note  C. — The  doctrine,  that  faith  is  merely  the  belief  of  facts,  ab- 
surd, unscriptural,  -  -  .  -  .  247 
Note  D. — Mr.  C.'s  doctrine  of  immersion  "  for  tlie  remission  of  sins,"  249 
Note  E. — Campbellites  and  Christ-ians  united — pay  their  preach- 
ers— ai-e  on  some  points  Unitarians  or  Arians,          -          -  251 


MEMOIR. 


The  following  Memoir  has  been  prepared  at  the  request  of 
the  friends  of  the  deceased,  especially  his  bereaved  partner, 
it  was  expected  that  a  variety  of  interesting  facts  and  incidents 
would  have  been  furnished  in  due  time.  In  this  the  writer  has 
been  much  disappointed.  Neither  has  any  aid  been  afforded 
from  private  papei-s.  Therefore,  little  of  incident  or  adventure 
is  to  be  expected.  Still,  it  is  hoped,  the  narrative  will  be  read 
with  interest,  especially  by  friends  snid  acquaintances.  It  pre- 
sents a  bright  example  of  Christian  character,  which  may  be 
profitable  for  instruction  and  reproof,  as  well  as  for  encourage- 
ment and  animation  to  the  people  of  God,  amidst  the  conflicts^ 
of  life,  and  the  agonies  of  death. 

Rev.  Obadiah  Jennings,  D.  D.,  was  b<^)rn  13th  Decem- 
ber, 1778,  near  Baskingridge,  in  the  stale  of  New-Jersey.  He 
was  the  fourth  son  of  the  Rev.  Jacob  Jennings,  a  minister  of 
the  Presbyterian  Church,  \\  ho  united  the  character  of  Clergy- 
man and  Physician.  Not  long  after  his  birth,  his  father  re- 
moved to  Virginia,  and  resided  several  years  on  the  Potomac. 
Thence  he  removed  to  Fayette  county,  in  Pennsylvania. 

Of  the  youthful  years  of  Mr.  Jennings  little  is  known.  The 
followmg  extract  of  a  letter  from  his  elder  brother.  Rev.  Dr. 
Samuel  K.  Jennings,  of  Baltimore,  to  his  nephew,  may  not  be 
unmteresting,  as  exhibiting  those  elements  of  character  which 
were  more  fully  developed  in  maturer  years.  "  He  was  no 
less  amiable  when  a  youth,  than  he  was  benevolent  and  de-  - 
serving  of  affection  when  a  man.  I  shall  never  forget  the 
cheerfulness  with  which  he  was  accustomed  to  divide  his  little 
stores  of  fruits  and  nuts  with  his  brothers,  when  he  was  at  any 
time  better  furnished  than  they,  nor  the  complaisance  wdth 
which  he  would  undertake  the  performance  of  services  ex-/ 
pected  at  their  hands.  He  was  remarkable  for  his  unqualified 
obedience  to  his  parents — an  unerring  index  of  his  subsequent 
usefulness  in  life.  He  acquired  his  literary  attainments  with 
great  facility,  yet  appeared  to  be  unconscious  of  any  supericnty 
of  genius.  He  was  naturally  disposed  to  be  facetious,  and  his 
2 


Vf 


retentive  memor>',  enabled  him  to  collect  an  unusual  stock 
of  anecdotas,  in  the  selection  and  application  of  which  he  dis- 
played uncommon  skilU" 

Having  enjoyed  a  strictly  religious  education,  under  the  care 
SHid  direction  of  eminently  pious  parents,  impressions  were 
made  on  his  mind  which  were  never  entirely  obliterated, 
and  had  an  influence  in  forming  correct  moral  habits,  and  re- 
straining him  from  vicious  excesses,  while  yet  a  stranger  to 
the  renewing  grace  of  the  gospel.  Having  given  early  indica- 
tions of  genius,  his  father  determined  to  afford  him  a  liberal 
education.  He  was  accordingly  sent  to  Canonsburg,  at  that 
time  the  seat  of  a  flourishing  Academy,  which  was  afterwards, 
in  1802,  organized  into  a  College,  called  "  Jeflferson  College." 
Here  he  pursued  with  diligence  and  success  the  study  of  the 
classics,  mathematics,  and  sciences.  Having  acquired  the  best 
education  which  the  Western  Country  could  then  afford,  he 
commenced  the  study  of  the  law,  with  John  Simonson,  Esq.,  of 
Washington,  where  he  was  first  admitted  to  the  bar  in  the  fall 
of  1800.  He  immediately  removed  to  Steubenville,  where  he 
commenced  practice.  His  first  speech  was  of  so  brilliant  a 
character,  and  gave  such  promise  of  future  eminence,  as  to 
place  him  at  once  in  the  first  rank  of  his  profession.  He  re- 
remained  at  Steubenville,  in  the  prosecution  of  his  profession, 
until  1811,  when  he  removed  to  Washington,  Pennsylvania, 
though  he  still  continued  to  practise  to  a  considerable  extent  in 
the  courts  of  Ohio,  until  his  introduction  into  the  ministry.  It 
may  here  be  noticed,  that  soon  after  his  removal  to  Steu- 
benville, he  was  united  in  marriage  with  Miss  Becket,  the 
daughter  of  Col.  Becket  of  Westmoreland  county,  Pa.  This 
amiable  lady  was  early  removed  by  death,  leaving  an  only 
daughter,  now  hopefully  pious,  and  happily  united  in  marriage 
to  a  respectable  physician.  He  was  again  married,  to  Miss 
Ann  Wilson,  daughter  of  a  respectable  clergyman  of  the  state  of 
Delaw8.re,  whose  cultivated  mind  and  energy  of  character, 
qualified  her  eminently  for  being  a  companion  and  counsellor 
to  her  husband  amidst  the  various  anxieties  and  toils  incident 
to  the  ministerial  office. 

At  the  bar,  he  ever  maintamed  a  high  standing,  and  fully- 
realized  tiie  expectations  excited  by  his  first  efforts.  He  pos- 
sessed that  happy  combination  of  talents  which  rendered  him 
an  able  and  popular  lawyer.  With  strong  intellectual  }>owers 
for  discrimmation  and  argument,  were  united  a  peculiar  prompt- 


MEMOm.  vu 

itude  in  discevermg  the  strong  points  of  a  case,  a  facility  arid 
clearness  of  illustration,  a  sprightliness  of  wit,  and  a  keenness 
of  satire,  which  he  could  employ  with  great  effect,  for  the  enter- 
tainment of  his  audience  and  the  annoyance  of  his  antagonist. 
In  the  language  of  one  who  knew  him  well,  "  his  forte  lay  in 
addressing  a  jury:  in  this  he  had  no  superior.  In  an  argument 
to  the-  court  on  a  point  of  law,  when  the  occasion  called  for 
prepai-ation,  and  required  him  to  put  forth  all  his  sti-ength,  he 
was  surpassed  by  few.^' 

He  was  much  esteemed  by  his  brethren  of  the  bar,  and 
greatly  confided  in  by  the  community  at  large.  The  amenity 
of  his  general  deportment,  the  urbanity  of  his  manners,  the 
ardor  with  which  he  espoused  the  cause  committed  to  his  care, 
with  the  candor  and  liberality  exercised  towards  his  clients, 
greatly  attached  them  to  him  as  a  man,  while  his  well  known 
abilities  and  tried  integrity,  induced  them  entirely  to  confide  in 
liim  as  a  counsellor. 

His  prospects  for  earthly  emolument,  honor,  and  distinction, 
were  as  flattering  as  those  of  any  of  his  associates,  and  never 
more  so  than  when  he  surrendered  them  all  for  the  sake  of 
preaching  the  gospel  of  Christ. 

Mr.  Jennings,  as  already  stated,  received  a  pious  education, 
which  had  a  controling  influence  on  his  principles  and  habits, 
amidst  all  the  seductive  influences  to  which  he  was  exposed. 
But  although  he  at  all  times  maintained  a  respect  for  religion, 
and  sustained  a  character  reputable  and  moral,  in  the  estima- 
tion of  the  world;  it  appears  that  he  remained  a  stranger  to  the 
transforming  power  of  the  gospel  on  his  heart  until  1809,  when 
he  was  constrained  to  make  an  unreserved  dedication  of  him- 
self to  God..  For  an  account  of  that  important  change,  which 
gave  a  new  direction  to  the  whole  current  of  his  soul,  we  have 
been  happily  favored  with  a  copy  of  a  letter  from  himself,  to 
his  intimate  friend,  David  Hoge,  Esq.,  of  Steubenville,  at  whose 
request,  and  for  whose  benefit,  the  letter  was  written. 

"Washington,  Aphil  1^  1812. 
"  Dear  Sir, — You  are  pleased  to  intimate  a  desire  to  know 
my  experience,  &c.   As  I  shall  have  no  leisure  for  some  weeks, 
I  have  concluded  to  write  to  you  at  the  present,  though  in  great 
haste. 

"  My  experience,  my  dear  sir,  is  very  small.  It  is  not  long, 
as  yau  know,  since  I  set  out  in  the  Christian  race,  and  my 


viii 


MEMOIR, 


attention  has  been  much,  too  much,  diverted  by  the  cares  and 
allurements  of  this  world.  Such,  however,  as  it  is,  I  will  give 
with  cheerlulness;  feelmg,  as  I  do,  something  of  that  infinite 
obhgation  I  am  under  to  Him,  who,  I  humbly  hope,  "  has  called 
me  from  darkness  to  light."  And  here,  my  dear  sir,  sutler 
me,  once  for  all,  to  express  my  deep  sense  of  my  inabilit}^  to 
write  on  this  subject,  and  my  earnest  prayer,  that  nothing  of 
what  I  may  say,  may  operate  as  a  stumbling  block  in  your 
way.  The  ex})erience  of  one  Christian,  whatever  may  be  his 
attainments,  can  never  be  the  proper  rule  for  another,"^  though 
it  may  serve  to  encourage,  strengthen,  and  confirm.  Did  I  not, 
then,  know  something  of  the  "  terrors  of  the  Lord,"  and  of  the 
absolute  necessity  of  a  change  of  heart,  in  order  to  obtain 
durable  happiness,  and  did  I  not  feel  myself  bound  to  give  a 
reason  for  my  hope  when  requested,  and  thereby  to  bear  a 
testimony,  however  feeble,  to  the  power,  goodness,  faithftilness, 
mercy  and  truth  of  Him  who  came  not  to  condemn,  bin  to 
seek  and  save  that  which  was  lost,  I  should  on  this  subject 
be  silent, 

"  I  was  educated  religiously,  and  had  convictions  from  time  to 
ane  from  my  childhood,  up  to  youth  and  manhood.  I  however, 
till  endeavored  to  obtain  pea-^e  of  conscience  by  entertaining  a 
j-ind  o'"  h;If-way  resolution,  v.iit  I  would  at  some  future  time 
-eek  for  religion,  and  it  was  not  until  a  short  time  before  I  was 
■ivvakened  seriously  to  inquire,  what  I  should  do,  &c.,  that  I 
oegau  deliberately  to  think  of  giving  up  all  hopes  of  making 
my  peace  with  God.  I  had  gone  far  in  the  paths  of  iniquity, 
and  I  have  reason  to  look  back  with  shame  and  horror  upon 
my  conduct.  While  I  was  in  this  state  of  mind,  some  lime  in 
the  fall  of  1809,  while  sitting  in  the  most  careless  manner, 
hearing  Mr.  Snodgrass  preach,  "  Eternity,"  upon  which  he 
was  treating,  was  presented  to  my  mind  in  such  a  M  ay,  as  I 
cannot  possibly  describe.  It  made  such  an  impression  on  my 
mmdjthat  I  Ix'gan,  immediately,  to  form  a  resolution  of  amend- 
ment. This  impression  was  not  wholly  worn  off,  when  the 
bidden  death  of  Mr.  Siraonson  was  made  tlie  means  of  farther 
alarm  to  me.  I  was,  not  long  afler,  led  seriously  to  inquire. 
What  I  should  do  to  be  saved  ?  I  began  to  read  the  Bible,  to 
meditate,  to  pray.  But  all  only  served  to  prove  my  inability 
to  do  any  thing  of  myself.  I  found  the  Bible  to  be  a  sealed 
book.  I  could  not  understand  it.  I  found  I  was  grossly  igno- 
rant, stupid,  blind,  hard  hearted,  and  unbelieving.  Our  Saviour 


^appeared  to  be  a  "  root  out  of  dry  ground,  without  form  or 
XJonieUness."  I  found  I  couid  np  more  believe  in  him  or  trust 
"to  him  for  salvation,  than  I  could  lift  a  mountain.  How  oltcn 
was  I  tempted  in  this  state  of  mind  to  give  up  ail  pursuit.  Stiii, 
however,  I  felt  and  secretly  cherished  an  opinion  or  belief  that 
if  I  did  but  try,  I  could  do  something  effectual.  And  eve  r y 
new  trial,  every  struggle,  every  effort,  only  serve  ^  further  to 
prove  my  real  situation,  my  weakness,  my  miserable  conditio  n, 
and  to  discover  my  secret  enmity  against  God.  What  hard 
thoughts  did  I  entertain  of  tlmt  Being  who  is  infinite  in  good- 
ness? What  risings  of  heart  against  his  sovereignty,  and  what 
enmity  of  heart  against  himself I  could  not  see  the  justice 
and  propriety  of  casting  me  off  forever,  provided  I  did  all  I 
could.  I  had  no  proper  conviction  of  my  guilt  for  my  past 
horrid  crimes,  nor  had  I  any  proper  knowledge,  of  the  spiritu- 
ality, the  holy  nature  and  inflexibility  of  that  law  of  Goil  which 
is  immutable  in  its  nature,  and  by  which  I  was  justly  con- 
demned. However,  tifter  many  painful  struggles,  vain  efforts, 
and  ineffectual  attempts  to  make  myself  fit  to  come  to  Christ.^ — 
after  passing  many  dark  days  and  sorrowful  nights,  I  was  at 
length,  as  I  hope,  convinced  of  my  sin  and  misery, — that  it  { 
ever  received  any  help,  it  must  be  from  God;  that  if  ever  I  was 
cured,  it  must  be  by  the  great  Physician  of  souls.  I  was  not 
long  in  this  situation,  before  God,  who  is  love,  "  revealed  (a?;  [ 
trust)  his  Son  in  me."  My  views  of  the  Divine  Character 
were  entirely  changed.    I  could  almost  ssy,  with  Watts, 

"  My  rapture  seem'd  a  pleasing  dream. 
The  grace  appear'd  so  great." 

My  hard  thoughts  of  God  were  gone.  1  could  now  rejcice 
*'  that  the  Lord  God  omnipotent  reigneth."  The  mystery  of 
God  manifest  in  the  flesh  appeared  indeed  great.  Jesus  appear- 
ed altogether  lovely,  and  the  chief  among  ten  thousand.  Mv 
heart  was  ravished  with  his  love,  (which  passeth  knowled^t.) 
in  assuming  our  nature,  to  pay  that  debt  which  we  could  nf  vrr 
pay, — in  rendering  that  obedience  to  the  divine  law  which  we 
could  never  render, — m  giving  himself  a  sacrifice  to  make  an 
atonement  for  our  sms,  whereby  we  may  draw  nigh  unto  God, 
— in  becoming  the  end  of  the  law  for  righteousness  to  all  that 
believe.  In  short,  my  hard  heart,  which  nothing  could  move, 
was  conquered  by  his  love,  his  dying  love.  He  appeared  to  be 
the  way,  the  truth,  and  the  life:  a  hiding-place  from  the  storm; 
an  ark  of  safety:  a  city  of  reOige,  where  my  guilty  soul  fieri  for 


MEMOIR. 


shelter.  I  was  constrained  by  his  love,  his  kind  invitations, 
and  his  gi'ace,  and  in  a  highly  tavored  hour,  I  hope  I  was  ena- 
bled to  give  myself  away  to  him  in  an  everlasting  coven- 
ant, never  to  be  forgotten, — to  commence  a  friendship  which  I 
liope  will  last  to  all  eternity. 

**  Yours,  &c. 

«0.  JENNINGS." 

In  the  year  1810,  Mr.  Jennings  connected  himself  with  the 
Presbyterian  church,  by  a  profession  of  his  faith,  and  not  long 
after,  as  already  stated,  removed  to  the  town  of  Washington, 
Pa.  Here  he  was  elected  to  the  office  of  Ruling  Elder,  the 
duties  of  which  he  continued  to  discharge  until  his  licensure  to 
preach  the  gospel.  In  this  capacity  he  was  eminently  useful, 
not  only  as  a  member  of  the  session,  and  congregation  to 
which  he  belonged,  but  also  in  the  higher  judicatories  of  the 
churchj  in  the  Presbytery  and  Synod,  and  once  as  a  delegate 
to  tlie  General  Assembly. 

Upon  his  first  attaching  himself  to  the  church,  and  for  some 
time  afterwards,  it  does  not  appear  that  he  had  any  intention 
of  relinquishing  the  profession  of  the  law.  His  first  serious 
thoughts  on  this  subject,  were  occasioned  by  a  visit  from  an 
obscure  Christian,  who  happened  to  tarry  at  his  house  all  night. 
The  remarks  of  this  humble  messenger  of  Providence,  accom- 
panied with  a  request  that  the  "  parable  of  the  talents"  should 
be  the  subject  of  special  examination  and  prayer  in  reference 
to  his  duty,  awakened  his  inquiry,  and  left  an  impression  on 
his  mmd  which  was  never  effaced.  Anxious  to  know  the  path 
of  duty,  dnd  determined  to  pursue  it  as  soon  as  it  .was  ascer- 
tained, he  was  for  some  time  in  great  doubt  and  uncertainty. 
His  friends  whom  he  consulted,  were  divided  in  opinion.  Ma- 
ny believed  that  his  prospects  of  usefulness  would  be  greater 
by  abiding  in  his  present  calling.  His  high  standing  at  the 
bar — his  talents  and  popular  manners — his  Christian  example 
in  the  courts  where  he  practised,  and  among  gentlemen  of  the 
bar  and  others,  afforded  an  opportunity  of  exerting  a  powerful 
moral  influence  on  many  persons,  in  a  great  measure  removed 
from  ministerial  intercourse.  Others  were  of  opinion,  that  all 
these  advantages  would  be  more  than  counterbalanced,  by 
bringing  at  once  the  whole  weight  of  his  character  and  tal- 
ents into  the  ministerial  office. 

To  himself,  the  practice  of  the  bar  had  become,  in  many  re- 


MEMOIR. 


spects,  irksome,  and  contrary  to  his  renovated  taste  and  habits. 
Uf  the -two  professions,  he  had  no  difficulty  in  determining 
which  would  best  accord  with  his  own  taste  and  feelings.  The 
courts  of  God's  house,  he  greatly  preferred  to  the  courts  of  earth- 
ly litigation.  Often  was  he  observed,  after  being  engaged  in  the 
business  of  the  court,  to  seek  refreshment  at  the  evening  pray- 
er meeting;  and  after  pleading  a  cause  at  a  human  bar,  would 
gladly  retire  to  unite  in  the  devotions  of  the  pious,  in  pleading 
the  cause  of  sinners  before  the  tribunal  of  God. 

While  his  mind  was  vibrating  on  the  great  question  of  his 
duty,  he  was  laid  on  a  bed  of  sickness,  and  brought  to  a  decis- 
ion in  the  light  of  eternity.  The  disease  with  which  he  was  at- 
tacked was  violent,  and  he  was  brought  down  to  the  very 
verge  of  the  grave.  His  recovery  was  considered  by  himself, 
as  well  as  his  friends  and  physician,  as  almost  hopeless.  It 
was,  for  several  days,  a  time  of  intense  anxiety  to  his  family 
and  friends.  The  awful  interest  of  the  scene  was  increased  by 
the  state  of  his  own  mind,  which,  for  a  time,  was  in  great 
darkness,  and  deprived  of  the  cheering  light  of  God's  counte- 
nance. Agonizing  prayers  were  offered  up  in  his  behalf, 
which  were  graciously  answered.  A  physician  of  eminence, 
from  Steubenville,  who  attended  him  constantly,  scarcely  en- 
tertained a  hope  of  his  recovery,  and  when  he  opened  a  vein  to 
bleed  him,  he  remarked  that  it  might  possibly  be  favorable,  but 
that  it  was  done  more  with  a  view  of  lessening  the  pains  of 
dying,  than  with  a  hope  of  restoring  him.  Soon  afterwards  a 
change  was  visible,  and  he  was  restored  in  a  manner  almost 
miraculous.  He  was  also  cheered  with  the  returning  light  of 
God's  countenance.  The  cloud  was  dispelled,"  and  he  was 
enabled  to  rejoice  in  God  his  Saviour.  "  The  question,"  said 
he,  "  is  decided.  If  God  spare  my  life,  it  shall  be  devoted  to 
his  service  in  preaching  the  gospel  of  Christ."  Soon  after  his 
recovery,  he  began  to  prepare  for  the  ministry,  by  a  course  of 
study  in  theology;  in  the  mean  time  closing  his  business  at  the 
bar;  and  in  the  fall  of  1816,  he  was  licensed  by  the  Presbytery 
of  Ohio  to  preach  the  gospel.  Shortly  after  his  licensure,  he 
received  a  unanimous  and  urgent  call  from  the  congregation 
of  Steubenville,  where  he  had  formerly  resided.  He  received 
solicitations  from  other  places,  and  a  unanimous  call  from  the 
congregation  of  Harrisburg,  the  seat  of  government  of  Penn- 
sylvania. This  station,  though  in  many  respects  the  most  im- 
portant, and  presenting  more  flattering  worldly  prospects,  he 


xii 


declined,  and,  after  much  prayerful  solicitude,  agreed  to  accept 
the  call  from  Steubenville.  To  this  it  appears  he  was  deter- 
mined by  a  strong  friendship  for  the  people  of  that  place,  and 
a  modest  diffidence  in  his  own  abilities. 

The  following  extract  of  a  letter,  written  on  his  return  from 
Harrisburg,  will  show  the  state  of  his  mind,  while  deliberating 
on  this  subject,  as  well  as  the  characteristic  modesty  and  hu» 
mility  of  the  man: 

"  Harrisburg  is  an  important  place,  in  many  respects,  as  it 
is  related  to  the  church;  and  I  suppose  it  presents  a  more  ex- 
tensive field  of  usefulness  than  Steubenville  can  possibly  do. 
But  the  importance  of  the  place  seems,  in  some  measure,  to 
deter  me  from  undertaking  it.  I  think  it  would  require  a  per- 
son of  more  talents,  more  acquirements,  and  more  health  than 
I  possess,  to  discharge  the  duties  which  would  be  incumbent  on 
a  minister  there;  and  presuming  upon  the  personal  attachment 
and  long  standing  friendship  of  the  Steubenville  people,  I  could 
better  hope  they  would  bear  with  my  infirmities,  than  a  con- 
gregation of  strangers." 

Having  accepted  of  the  call,  he  removed  to  Steubenville  in 
the  spring  of  1817,  and  was  ordained  and  installed  pastor.  In 
assuming  the  work  of  the  ministry,  he  dedicated  at  once,  to  the 
service  of  his  Lord,  all  his  thoughts,  and  all  his  talents.  Zeal- 
ously and  exclusively  devoted  to  the  highly  responsible  duties 
of  his  office,  his  great  and  constant  ambition  was,  to  subserve 
by  his  labors,  the  eternal  interests  of  the  people  of  his  charge, 
and  promote  the  general  welfare  of  the  church  of  Christ. 

He  continued  pastor  of  the  Steubenville  congregation  six 
years.  His  labors,  though  not  attended  with  any  remarkable 
or  general  revival  of  religion,  were  blessed  to  a  considerable 
extent  in  the  conversion  of  sinners,  and  the  edification  of  the 
church.  Of  those  who  were  added  to  the  church  under  his 
ministry,  some  are  now  preaching  the  gospel,  and  a  number 
active  and  useful  members  of  the  church. 

The  congregation  of  Washington,  Pennsylvania,  having 
become  vacant  by  the  resignation  of  their  former  pastor.  Rev. 
M.  Brown,  who  had  been  chosen  President  of  Jefferson  Col- 
lege, the  people  of  that  congregation  immediately  directed 
»  their  attention  to  Mr.  Jennings,  as  their  future  pastor.  A  call 
was  accordingly  prepared;  and  although  the  separation  from 
his  beloved  charge  was  deeply  and  mutually  regretted,  yet  it 
appeared  to  be  duty  to  remove  to  Washington,  as  opening  a 


MEMOIR. 


field  of  more  extensive  usefulness.  He  accordingly  accepted 
of  the  call,  and  took  charge  of  the  congregation,  in  the  spring 
of  1823. 

Having  entered  upon  this  new  field  of  labor,  he  advanced 
to  the  work  with  his  usual  fidelity  and  perseverance.  Here  he 
continued, five  years,  and  his  labors  of  love  will  long  be  re- 
membered by  that  people.  Although  no  Yery  special  or  exten- 
sive influence  appeared  to  attend  his  ministr}',  which  was  to  him 
matter  of  painful  regret,  there  were,  however,  many  gradual 
additions  to  the  chwrch;  and  about  the  close  of  his  ministry 
here,  and  after  he  had  determined  to  remove,  he  had  the  plea- 
sure of  seeing  a  "  time  of  refreshing  from  the  presence  of  the 
Lord."  This  season  of  special  seriousness  continued  for  a 
considerable  time  after  his  removal,  and  the  result  was  a  large 
accession  to  the  church. 

Having  received  a  call  from  Nashville,  Tennessee,  his 
mind  was  again  in  great  perplexity  as  to  the  path  of  duty.  In 
writing  to  a  friend  on  this  subject,  he  says,  "  I  have  not  made 
up  my  mind,  and  feel  myself  in  a  ver\-  solemn,  diflicult,  and 
trying  situation.  I  hope  my  desire  is  to  know  the  will  of  the 
Lord,  that  I  may  do  it.  I  just  hear,  there  are  very  pleasing 
indications,  that  the  Lord  is  about  to  visit  Cross-Roads  congre- 
gation, with  a  powerful  work  of  grace.  If  such  should  be  the 
case  here,  it  would  reconcile  me  fully  to  remain."  Before  the 
good  work  did  commence  at  Washington,  he  had  given  a 
pledge  to  accept  the  call  from  Nashville,  and  could  not  consist- 
ently retract,  otherwise  he  would  have  remained,  and  it  was 
not  without  a  painful  struggle  that  he  tore  himself  away  from 
his  pastoral  charge,  from  numerous  and  endeared  friends — the 
companions  of  his  youth — to  spend  the  remainder  of  his  days 
among  strangers. 

In  April,  1528,  he  removed  to  Nashville,  where  he  remain- 
ed until  his  decease.  The  writer  has  not  been  furnished  with 
much  information  respecting  his  labors  in  this  place.  His 
health  had  been  much  impaired  for  several  years  previously, 
and  becoming  still  more  precarious,  his  ministerial  labors  were 
requently  interrupted.  Still  he  persevered  in  the  arduous  du- 
es of  his  office,  whenever  health  permitted — and  often  under 
iie  pressure  of  disease,  and  in  circumstances  which  would  have 
-ubdued  and  appalled  an  ordinary  mind. 

He  continued  to  grow  in  the  estim.ation  of  the  people  of 
Nashville.    In  his  private  letters,  he  speaks  with  great  aliec- 


xiv 


MEMOIR. 


tion  of  their  kindness  and  sympathy,  whilst  he  mourned  over 
his  own  unprofitableness,  and  that  his  ministry  was  attended 
with  so  little  apparent  success.  The  amount  of  a  minister's 
usefulness  is  not  always  to  be  estimated  by  its  immediate  and 
visible  effects.  God  often,  for  wise  purposes,  conceals  from  the 
view  of  his  most  faithful  servants,  the  effects  of  their  labors, — 
"  One  man  soweth  and  another  reapeth." 

It  is  probable  this  servant  of  God,  zealous  as  he  was  in  his 
master's  service,  and  anxious  for  the  conversion  of  sinners,  was 
mistaken  in  the  estimate  which  he  made  of  the  success  of  his 
labors  in  Nashville,  and  also  in  his  former  charges.  Eternity 
alone  will  disclose  the  amount  of  good  to  result,  in  successive 
generations,  from  an  able  and  faithful  exhibition  of  divine 
truth,  enforced  by  so  lovely  an  example,  and  accompanied  by 
so  many  fervent  prayers.  The  congregation,  during  his  last 
illness,  entertaining  a  hope  that  travelling,  and  a  suspension  of 
labors,  might  restore  him,  requested  him  to  take  a  journey,  and 
passed  a  unanimous  resolution  to  employ  a  substitute  at  their 
own  expense.  But  his  race  was  run.  ^Vhen  his  strength  was 
greatly  reduced,  and  his  body  wasted  by  the  disease  which  had 
so  long  preyed  upon  him,  the  prevalent  influenza  seized  vio- 
lently upon  him  and  terminated  his  sufferings. 

The  closing  scene  was  such  as  might  have  been  anticipated 
from  a  life  so  devoted  to  the  service  of  the  Redeemer.  "  Pre- 
cious in  the  sight  of  God  is  the  death  of  his  saints."  Precious 
too,  in  the  recollection  of  pious  friends,  is  the  "  death-bed  of  the 
just."  With  a  mind  calm  and  composed,  in  full  view  of  death 
and  judgment,  he  called  his  family  around  him,  to  bid  them  a 
final  farewell.  With  his  dying  benediction  and  prayer,  he 
gave  to  each  of  his  children  that  were  present,  his  last  counsel, 
in  a  manner  most  tender,  solemn,  and  beautifully  appropriate. 
He  left  his  blessing,  also,  to  those  who  were  absent.  Silver 
and  gold  he  had  none  to  leave  them.  The  riches  of  the  world  he 
had  renounced  for  the  gospel's  sake;  but  he  had  that  to  leave 
them  which  was  of  more  value  than  all  the  riches  of  the  world. 
In  faith  on  the  divine  promises,  he  cheerfully  committed  his 
family  to  God,  expressing  a  strong  confidence  that  He 
would  provide.  When  reminded  of  the  promise  made  to  the 
fatherless  and  the  widow;  "  that,"  said  he,  with  emphasis  and 
animation,  "  is  the  legacy,  that  is  the  legacy." 

W^hen  his  son  Thomas,  who  had  been  his  constant  nurse 
and  physician,  said  to  him,  "  Father  you  are  dying" — he  im- 
mediately replied,  "  Bless  the  Lord,  0  my  soul." 


MEMOIR. 


In  a  moment  of  great  suffering,  he  remarked  with  character- 
istic energy  of  thought,  "  If  this  be  the  way  to  heaven,  what 
must  be  the  way  to  hell?"  His  mind  however  was  calm  and 
resigned,  and  even  triumphant,  in  the  near  prospect  of  death. 
As  a  draught  of  water  was  presented  to  his  dying  lips,  he 
said,  "  I  shall  soon  drink  from  the  river  of  Hfe,  which  issues 
from  the  {hrone  of  God  and  the  Lamb." 

He  asked  his  wife  to  repeat  to  him  the  answer  to  the  question 
in  the  Shorter  Catechism,  "  What  benefits  do  believers  receive 
from  Christ  at  their  death?"  and  several  times  afterwards  re- 
peated with  great  delight,  "  the  souls  of  believers  are  at  their 
death  made  perfect  in  holiness,  and  do  immediately  pass  into 
glory."  Thus  while  his  mind  was  absorbed  in  the  contempla- 
tion of  those  glorious  prospects  which  were  opening  upon  him, 
he  sunk,  with  peaceful  serenity,  into  the  slumber  of  death — 
resting,  with  unshaken  confidence,  in  the  merits  of  the  Re- 
4eemer,  for  an  abundant  entrance  into  the  everlasting  king' 
dom  of  God — animated  with  a  hope  full  of  immortality." 

"  The  chamber  where  the  good  man  meets  his  fate, 

Is  privileged  beyond  the  common  walk 

Of  virtuous  life,  quite  in  the  verge  of  heaven." 

"  Whatever  farce  the  boastftil  hero  plays, 

Virtue  alone  has  majesty  in  death. 

His  God  sustains  him  in  his  final  hour — 

His  final  hour  brings  glory  to  his  God." 

After  his  death,  every  suitable  mark  of  respect  was  shown  by 
the  people  of  Nashville.  His  funeral  was  one  of  the  largest 
ever  seen  in  that  place.  His  congregation  went  in  mourning. 
A  funeral  sermon  was  delivered  by  the  Rev.  Mr.  Hume.  Fu- 
neral sermons  were  also  delivered  in  each  of  the  congregations 
of  ^vhich  he  had  been  pastor.  At  Steuben ville,  by  the  Rev. 
Charles  C.  Beatty,  and  at  Washington,  Pa.  by  the  Rev.  David 
EUiot,  pastors  of  said  congregations. 

In  conclusion  of  this  imperfect  sketch  of  the  life  of  this 
excellent  man,  it  may  not  be  improper  to  add  some  remarks, 
and  delineate  more  in  detail  some  traits  of  character,  suggested 
by  the  recollections  of  intimate  acquaintance,  as  well  as^by  the 
statements  already  made. 

As  to  his  private  life,  it  may  be  truly  said,  he  was  exem- 
plary in  all  its  relations.    Few  men  have  passed  through  life 


xvi 


more  generally  beloved  and  esteemed,  and  more  completely 
without  reproach.  Though  often  placed  in  trying  situations 
and  in  the  midst  of  conflicting  parties,  it  was  his  happiness  to 
secure  the  confidence  and  esteem  of  all.  This  did  not  arise 
from  a  want  of  decision  nor  from  a  vacillating,  trimming 
policy;  for  no  man  was  more  decided,  nor  more  prompt  to  ex- 
press his  opinion  when  the  occasion  called  for  it.  But  his 
consistency  of  character,  and  an  indescribable  frankness  and 
cordiality  of  manner,  carried  conviction  to  every  heart,  of  his 
honesty  and  benevolence. 

He  was  peculiarly  interesting  and  engaging  as  a  companion, 
and  in  his  social  intercourse.  Cheerful  and  sociable  in  his 
disposition,  and  abounding  in  apposite  and  pleasing  anecdotes, 
which  he  related  with  inimitable  simplicity,  his  approach  to  the 
social  circle  was  welcomed  by  every  countenance.  There 
was  a  captivating  urbanity  of  manners,  which  spread  an  irre- 
sistible charm  over  all  his  intercourse  with  society.  These 
amiable  qualities,  which  belonged  to  him  as  a  man,  became 
doubly  interesting,  when  consecrated  by  religion.  In  him 
were  combined  the  gentleman  and  the  Christian.  He  ex- 
hibited the  practicability  and  importance  of  uniting  the  things 
that  are  pure  and  honest,  with  those  that  arelovely  and  of  good 
report.  He  was  cheerful  without  unbecoming  levity,  and 
solemn  without  moroseness  and  gloom;  this  happy  combina- 
tion, not  often  possessed,  and  too  little  regarded,  greatly  enlarged 
his  usefulness  in  his  social  intercourse. 

He  took  a  deep  and  generous  interest  in  the  welfare  of 
others.  His  heart  was  the  seat  of  benevolence,  and  the  "  law  of 
kindness  ever  dwelt  on  his  tongue."  Whilst  he  declined  not  to 
share  in  the  rational  enjoyments  of  the  social  circle,  a  deeper 
interest  marked  his  visits  to  the  house  of  mourning,  the  cham- 
bers of  the  sick  and  the  dying.  Deeply  afflicted  himself,  he 
well  knew  how  to  speak  a  word  in  season  to  others,  and  to 
point  them  to  the  only  true  source  of  consolation. 

He  was  affable  and  accessible  to  persons  of  every  rank,  the 
poor  as  well  as  the  rich.  His  purse  was  ever  open  to  the  de- 
mands of  christian  liberality  and  the  calls  of  charity. 

Another  trait  of  character,  which  deserves  particular  notice, 
was  his  deep  and  unaffected  humility.    His  estimation  of  him-  | 
self  in  every  respect,  was  far  below  the  estimation  which  other- 
were  ready  to  form  of  him.    His  views  of  himself,  especiall} 
to  his  religious  attainments,  were  exceedingly  humbling  ai.>  i 


MEMOIR. 


xvii 


self-abasing.  While  others  beheld  in  him  a  bright  example  of 
the  christian  gi-aces,  and  he  appeared  laden  with  fruits  of  piety, 
he  was  in  his  own  view  "a  poor,  wretched,  sinful,  unprofitable 
servant,  a  barren  shrub,  deserving  only  to  be  cut  down  and 
cast  into  the  fire."  These  self-abasing  views,  increasing  with 
his  progress  in  holiness,  may  appear  strange  and  paradoxical 
to  those  who  are  ignorant  of  God  and  of  their  own  hearts. 
But  they  are  the  views  and  exercises  of  the  truly  pious  in  every 
age.  They  result  from  the  increasing  light  of  holiness,  clearer 
views  of  the  divine  perfections,  the  strictness,  purity  and  extent 
of  the  divine  law,  and  a  more  acute  sense  of  the  evrl  and 
odiousness  of  sin,  as  contrasted  with  the  law  and  the  character 
of  God. 

Taught  by  his  own  painful  experience,  in  his  first  convic- 
tions and  subsequent  exercises  under  the  teachings  of  the 
Sj)irit,  he  had  an  uncommonly  deep  sense  of  human  depravity. 
This  was  a  subject  on  which  he  dwelt  with  great  emphasis  and 
force.  No  language  appeared  strong  enough  to  describe  the 
deceitfulncss  .and  pride,  carnality,  selfishness  and  desperate 
wickedness  of  the  carnal  mind,  which  is  enmity  against  God. 
It  seemed  to  give  a  character  and  tone  to  all  his  ministerial 
sei-vices,  his  prayers,  his  exhortations  and  serm.ons.  He  sel- 
dom closed  a  discourse  without  making  an  assault  on  this 
citadel  of  depravity,  and  applying  his  subject  with  a  view  of 
detecting  and  exposing  its  secret  abominations.  By  his  inti- 
mate and  deep  knowledge  of  the  heart,  he  was  eminently 
qualified  to  address  anxious  sinners,  to  destroy  their  delusive 
hopes,  detect  their  legality,  and  pursue  them  through  every 
refuge  of  lies,  and  to  point  them  to  a  crucified  Saviour  as  their 
only  safety. 

Although  his  youthful  advantages  of  education  were  more 
limited  at  that  early  period  in  the  western  country,  thai! 
those  which  are  enjoyed  at  present,  yet  his  literary  acquire- 
ments were  highly  respectable.  As  a  testimony  of  the  estima- 
tion in  which  he  was  held,  it  may  be  mentioned,  that  a  short 
time  l>efore  his  decease,  the  college  of  New-Jersey  conferred 
on  him  the  degree  of  Doctor  of  Divinity.  During  his  practice 
at  the  bar,  accustomed  to  write  only  in  haste  and  on  business, 
he  had  given  little  attention  to  style,  and  when  he  commenced 
the  composition  of  sermons,  he  labored  under  no  small  difficul- 
ty, which,  however,  he  was  enabled  to  surmount,  so  as  to  write 
3 


XX 


MEMOIR. 


tended  to  confine  and  restrict  the  energies  of  his  mind:  hence 
he  always  was  more  acceptable  when  untrammelled  with  his 
notes.  It  was  then  he  appeared  to  put  forth  all  his  powers,  and 
infuse  into  his  subject  and  his  utterance,  the  whole  ardor  of 
his  soul. 

On  one  occasion,  when  assisting  a  brother  in  the  administra« 
tion  of  the  Lord's  Supper,  his  notes,  with  some  of  his  garments, 
were  accidently  consumed  by  fire.  He  had  to  preach  on  Mon- 
day, and  with  much  reluctance  and  fear,  proceeded  without  his 
manuscript.  The  impression  was  powerful.  His  sermon  was 
much  more  interesting  and  acceptable  than  any  he  had  deliver- 
ed^ on  the  preceding  days.  A  pious  old  elder,  hearing  the  dis- 
aster  wliich  had  befallen  liim,  offered  up  a  very  sincere  prayer 
that  all  his  "  notes  might  share  a  similar  fate." 

His  great  object  in  preaching  was  to  do  good  to  the  souls  of 
men,  not  by  addressing  them  in  the  "  enticing  words  of  man's 
wisdom,"  but  in  "  demonstration  of  the  Spirit,  and  with  power." 
His  sermons  were  doctrinal,  experimental,  and  practical.  He 
was  far  fi'om  countenancing  a  sceptical  indiflerence  to  religious 
(^pinions:  he  attached  an  eternal  importance  to  the  belief  of  the 
t£ut!i,  and  "earnestly  contended  for  the  faith."  Whilst  he 
cherished  kind  and  generous  sentiments  to  other  denominations, 
who  differed  on  some  points,  he  was  a  decided  and  zealous 
advocate  of  the  doctrines  of  the  Presbyterian  Church,  as  set 
forth  in  their  public  standards.  His  great  aim  in  addressing 
sinners,  was  to  bring  them  to  Christ.  To  effect  this,  he  pressed 
on  their  consciences  the  strictness  and  extent  of  the  law,  their 
obligation,  their  guilt,  their  depravity,  their  dreadful  condition, 
and  the  necessity  of  immediate  repentance  towards  God,  and 
faith  in  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ.  He  taught  the  total  and  despe- 
rate depravity,  and  the  entire  helplessness  and  inability  of  the 
sinner,  and  the  absolute  necessity  of  almighty,  sovereign  grace, 
to  change  the  heart.  At  the  same  time,  he  so  taught  this  doc- 
trine, as  to  show  the  sinner  that  his  inability,  whatever  it  might 
be  called,  did  not  exonerate  from  obligation  or  guilt;  that  it  was 
the  inability  of  wickedness;  the  inability  of  a  depraved  heart: 
and  instead  of  being  an  excuse  for  his  impenitence  and  unbe- 
lief, was  itself  the  essential  crime.  His  sermons  were  peculiar- 
ly calculated  to  destroy  the  delusive,  self-righteous  hopes  of 
sinners;  to  unmask  the  formalist  and  the  hypocrite;  to  search 
and  try  the  people  of  God;  as  well  as  to  pour  the  consolations  of 
the  gospel  into  the  wounded  spirit. 


xxi 


His  style  of  preachings  as  has  been  justly  described,  "  was 
Ciharacterized  by  strength,  rather  than  poUsh;  by  solid  sense, 
rather  than  elegance  of  language;  by  clearness  of  exposition, 
rather  than  ornament;  by  force  of  argument,  rather  than  beauty 
of  illustration."  His  eloquence  was  the  eloquence  of  thought, 
rather  than  deliv-ery.  Few  persons  could  sit  under  his  ministry 
with  indifference.  The  serious  and  the  pious  heard  him  with 
interest  and  delight,  while  the  more  careless  could  not  fail  to  be 
Impressed  with  the  solemnity  and  force  of  his  addresses,  and 
whatever  opinion  they  formed  of  the  sermon  or  the  speaker, 
retired  with  a  less  lavorable  opinion  of  themselves. 


We  have  been  favored  with  a  copy  of  several  letters,  addres- 
sed to  Doctor  Samuel  K.  Jennings,  of  Baltimore,  the  eldest 
brother,  a  highly  respectable  physician,  and  a  minister  of  the 
gospel  of  the  Methodist  church.  They  ai-e  here  added  without 
any  apology  or  comment.  They  will  be  read,  we  doubt  not, 
with  deep  interest,  especially  by  friends  and  acquaintances, 
who  will  be  glad  to  possess  them  as  memorials  of  one  so  much 
beloved. 

Stei  benville,  Jan.  23,  1810. 

Dear  Brother: — Yours:  of  the  24th  December,  came  duly  to 
hand,  &c.  Nothing  could  be  more  appropriate  than  the  post- 
script in  reference  to  myself.  Having  become,  in  some  mea- 
sure, convinced  of  the  vanity  of  this  world,  and  the  dissatis- 
jying  nature  of  all  its  enjoyments,  I  have  within  these  three 
months  past,  been  led  into  a  train  of  serious  reflection,  upon 
the  necessity  of  preparing  for  that  which  is  to  come.  I  felt 
conscious  I  was  not  in  the  right  way,  that  I  was  without  God 
and  without  hope,  and  that  without  a  great  change  in  my  na- 
ture and  disposition,  I  could  never  enjoy  peace  here,  nor  hap- 
piness hereafter.  These  impressions  were  probably  rendered 
more  deep  by  the  sudden  death  of  our  friend  Simonson. 

The  day  you  wrote  your  letter,  I  spent  with  our  father  at 
his  house.  He,  with  all  his  parental  anxiety  and  pious  solici- 
tude for  my  eternal  welfare,  urged  me,  as  he  had  frequently 
done  before,  to  begin  the  worship  of  God  in  my  family.  I  did 
not,  at  that  time,  com.ply.  I  thought  I  saw  so  many  difficulties 
in  the  way,  it  would  be  impossible  for  me  to  attempt  it.  Since  . 
my  return  home,  however,  and  since  the  commencement  of  this 

*.3 


MEMOm. 


year,  I  have  been  enabled,  after  the  most  riolent  struggle, 
which  you  can  better  conceive  than  I  can  describe,  to  attempt 
to  acknowledge  God  in  my  family.  My  Ann  is  rejoiced,  and 
renders  praise  to  God  for  bringing  me  to  see,  in  some  measui-e, 
the  necessity  and  importance  of  religion.  But  alas!  I  fear  her 
joy  will  be  very  short  lived!  My  performances  of  all  religious 
duties  which  I  attempt,  especially  family  worship,  is  so  wretch- 
ed, I  have  been  frequently  ready  to  conclude  I  must  give  it  up. 
At  one  time  I  feel  myself  so  ignorant,  so  blind,  so  stupid,  and 
so  hard-hearted,  that  I  am  almost  ready  to  despair  of  ever  ar- 
riving at  the  knowledge  of  God.  At  cmotlier,  and  more  par- 
'icularly  after  I  have  attended  to  some  religious  duty,  I  find  all 
concern  removed  from  my  mind,  and  a  great  disposition  to  rest 
u]X)n  my  miserable  and  sinful  performances.  And  all  this 
notwithstandinii;  I  am  ccaiscious  that  whenever  I  attempt  to 
I  ray,  it  is  nothing  better  than  a  solemn  mockery  of  God — that 
all  my  prayers  are  cold,  lifeless,  formal  and  hyjxx^ritical. 

I  have  not  been  filled  with  terror,  nor  had  any  very  alarm- 
ng  fears  of  hell. '  I  have  no  proper  sense  of  my  guilt,  nor  my 
1  eed  of  a  Saviour.    I  cannot  see  the  e\il  nature  of  sin,  as  I 
ould  wish.    It  does  not  api^ar  to  be  that  exceeding  smful' 
thing,  described  by  the  apostle.    I  am  so  stupid,  and  have  so 
much  hardness  of  heart,  that  I  can  road  or  hear  the  "  terrors  of 
he  Lord,"  without  being  terrified,  and  his  most  gracious 
]  remises  -without  being  allui-ed.    I  frequently  find  myself  call- 
ing in  question  the  sovereignty  of  God,  and  finding  fault  with 
:he  way  of  salvation  as  offered  in  the  gospel.    I  am  greatly 
Veset  with  doubts  and  unbelief;  frequently  ready  to  say  with 
Nicodemus,  "  how  can  these  things  be?''  and  with  the  unbe- 
lieving Jews,  "  Is  not  this  the  Carpenter's  son."  Notwith- 
standing the  evidence  of  the  death  and  sufferings,  the  resurrec- 
tion, and  glorious  ascension  of  the  Saviour,  is  infinitely  more 
^"rong,  than  that  upon  which  a  thousand  other  things  rest, 
'.vhicli  t  firmly  believe,  yet  I  dare  not  say  that  I  ever  did  in  my 
'  "^rXjirndy  believe  in  their  existence.    My  judgment  tells  me 
■  his  must  be  the  consequence  of  the  utter  depravity  of  rr  y  heart 
— ^but  of  this  depravity,  I  cannot  feel  sensible.    Thus,  my 
dear  b-other,  I  have  endeavored  to  let  you  know  something  of 
ihe  state  of  my  mind.    \\  hat  will  be  the  event,  God  only 
-nows.    Whether  these  dry  bones  can  five,  "O  Lord  thou 
f  newest,"    Pray  for  me,  my  brother,  pray  without  ceasing. 

Yours,  O.  J. 


MEMOIR. 


xxili 


Steubenville,  March  24,  1810. 

Dear  Brother: — Your  letter  in  answer  to  mine,  I  have  re- 
ceived, and  I  sit  down  in  great  haste  and  distraction  of  mind, 
being  compelled  to  write  to  day,  or  to  put  it  off  for  some  weeks, 
as  the  Circuit  commences  the  first  of  next  week,  and  I  shall, 
of  course,  be  engaged. 

Since- the  date  of  my  last,  I  have  experienced  various  exer- 
cises of  mind,  which  I  need  not  give  in  detail.  I  have  reason, 
however,  to  bless  God,  that  I  have  not,  as  yet,  been  permitted 
to  return  with  the  "  dog  to  his  vomit,"  though  I  have  been 
frequently  very  nearly  overcome  by  the  world,  the  flesh,  and 
the  devil.  I  have  for  a  long  time  been  endeavoring  to  estab- 
lish my  own  righteousness,  not  submitting  to  the  righteousness 
of  God.  I  have  labored  to  make  myself  better  and  fit,  as  I 
supposed,  to  come  to  Christ.  But  Oh!  how  vain  the  attempt. 
I  have  found  my  heart  to  be  indeed  d.xeitful,  and  desperately 
wicked.  My  experience  has  taught  me  that  the  carnal  mind 
is  enmity  against  God.  I  have  thought  I  could  find  myself 
taking  some  encouragement  from  the  gracious  promises  of  Gk>d, 
but  I  have  more  frequently  been  in  a  state  of  despondency  and 
filled  with  hard  thoughts  of  God,  and  his  moral  government. 
I  have  discovered  that  I  am,  as  it  were,  made  up  of  darkness, 
blindness,  ignorance,  stupidity,  and  hardness  of  heart.  As  I 
mentioned  to  you  in  my  last,  I  have  been  awfully  beset  with 
doubts  of  the  truth  of  the  scriptures,  the  divinity  our  Saviour, 
and  even  the  existence  of  God. 

I  was  lately,  through  the  mercy  of  God,  saved  from  a  dan- 
gerous delusion,  which  I  can  hardly  describe  to  you.  A  hope 
sprang  up  within  me,  that  I  had  attained  to  some  knowledge  of 
the  true  God,  that  my  sins  were  pardoned,  and  that  I  really 
loved  God  supremely.  It  was  for  some  time  attended  with  a 
delight  I  never  before  experienced.  For  some  days  I  felt  at 
particular  times,  as  I  thought,  my  affections  drawn  out  after 
God,  and  a  desire  to  be  with  him,  and  dwell  with  him  forever. 
During  this  time  I  did  not  feel  that  working  of  sin  within  me, 
which  I  experienced  before  and  since.  I  was  "  alive  without 
the  law,  and  thought  my  sins  were  dead."  But  after  a  few 
days  I  began  to  examine  the  grounds  of  m}^  hope,  and  was  led 
to  discern  that  it  was  without  foundation,  and  I  was,  at  length, 
with  some  reluctance,  foi:ced  to  give  it  up.  But  when  my 
hopes  left  me,  "  my  sins  revived."  I  thought  I  should  be  over- 
come.  I  found  such  an  opj)osition  within  me,  to  every  thing 


xxiv 


MEMOIR. 


that  was  good,  such  risings  of  my  heart  against  God,  and  such 
a  disposition  to  give  up  all  further  attempts  to  seek  lor  mercy, 
that  it  was  a  mercy  indeed  I  did  not  stop  there.  Since  that 
time,  I  am  in  some  measure,  (if  not  again  deceived,)  brought 
to  see,  that  "  in  me  there  is  no  help  found."  That  I  must  look 
to  God  lor  the  desired  blessing,  and  I  think  I  have  been  ena- 
bled to  look  to  the  promises  of  God  with  a  hope  that  he  will,  in 
his  own  time  and  manner,  bring  me  out  of  darkness  into  his 
marvellous  light — and  I  sometimes  think  I  can  see  something 
more  in  a  crucified  Redeemer,  than  I  heretofore  have  done. 
But  I  know  little  or  nothing  of  the  way  of  salvation.  I  am 
grossly  ignorant  of  the  character  of  God.  I  fear  I  have  never 
had  any  proper  views  of  the  evil  nature  of  sin,  or  any  genuine 
conviction  thereof.  I  have  been  encouraged  particularly  by 
the  promise,  "  Then  shall  ye  know,  if  ye  follow  on  to  know  the 
Lord."  I  need  not  request  an  interest  in  your  prayers,  know- 
ing that  you  do  not  forget  me.        Yours,  &c.  O.  J. 

Steubenville,  May  2,  1810. 
Dear  Brother: — Since  the  date  of  my  last,  I  have  been  most 
continually  immersed  in  the  affairs  and  business  of  my  profes- 
sion, although  I  have  not,  for  any  great  length  of  time,  been 
destitute  of  serious  exercises  in  relation  to  the  concerns  of  my 
soul;  yet  I  have  had  but  little  leisure,  and  often  less  inclination, 
to  attend  to  the  duties  of  religion.  For  some  time  past,  how- 
ever, I  have  entertained  a  hope — and  Oh!  if  I  am  not  mistaken, 
the  foundation  of  that  hope  is  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  and  him 
crucified.  I  have,  at  times,  been  able  from  my  heart  to  say,  in 
the  words  of  Dr.  Watts: 

"  No  more,  my  God,  I'll  boast  no  more 

Of  all  the  duties  I  have  done, 
I  quit  the  hopes  I  held  before, 

To  trust  the  merits  of  thy  Son." 

I  do  not  know  that  I  ever  have  been  able  to  exercise  any 
acts  of  saving  faith,  but  I  have,  at  times,  for  a  few  moments, 
experienced  a  joy,  a  consolation,  a  peace  of  mind  which  I  never 
before  experienced,  and  which  I  am  ready  to  conclude  the 
"  world  cannot  give."  I  have  sometimes  thought  I  felt  my 
soul  going  out  in  longing  desires  after  God,  and  could  with  joy 
say,  "  The  Lord  God  omnipotent  reigneth."  When  I  first  be- 
gan to  feel. for  the  state  of  my  soul,  I  was  exceedingly  selfish. 
1  thought  if  I  could  only  secure  my  own  soul's  salvation,  it 


MEMOIR. 


XXV 


would  be  ail  I  should  desire.  But  latterly,  I  have  sometimes 
felt  a  very  anxious  desire,  that  all  the  world  should  come  to 
the  knowledge  of  the  true  God,  and  the  fulness  there  is  in 
Jesus — and  at  times  I  have  been  led  to  pray  with  as  much 
earnestness,  that  "  the  will  of  God  might  be  done  on  earth,  as  it  is 
in  heaven,"  as  I  ever  prayed  for  the  salvation  of  my  own  soul. 

This  is  the  bright  side,  if  I  may  so  term  it,  of  the  picture. 
Vi'hen  I  take  a  view  of  the  reverse,  it  is  all  darkness.  I  fre- 
quently feel  such  an  opposition  and  reluctance  to  rehgious 
duties — so  much  unbelief — such  hardness  of  heart — such  dead- 
ness  and  stupidity — such  Hfelessness  in  the  service  of  God,  that 
niy  hope  in  a  great  measure  leaves  me.  I  feel  myself  so  igno- 
rant of  God,  and  to  possess  so  httle,  if  any,  knowledge  of  the 
hidden  mysteries  of  the  gospel,  that  I  am  frequently  very  much 
discouraged.  I  am  also  very  fearful  that  I  have  not  viewed 
sin  as  it  ought  to  be  viewed — and  that  I  have  never  been  the 
subject  of  true  evangehcal  repentance.  I  have  had  some 
tlioughts  of  yielding  myself  up  to  God,  in  a  solemn  act  of  self- 
dedication,  and  of  mailing  a  public  profession  of  my  faith  in 
Christ,  by  coming  forward  to  the  table  of  the  Lord.  Whether 
I  shall  be  enabled  to  do  it,  is  not  for  me  to  say.  My  proles- 
sional  business  but  ill  accords  with  the  practical  duties  of 
Christianity.  Were  I  now  setting  out  in  hfe,  I  do  not  think  I 
should  ever  practise  law.  But  I  suppose  I  must  submit  to  the 
drudgery  of  the  profession,  now  rendered  doubly  irksome. 
My  dear  brother,  cease  not  to  pray  for  me. 

Yours,  vkc.  O.  J. 

Steubexville,  June  6,  ISIO. 

Dear  Brother: — Yours  of  the  22 d  of  April,  has  been  receiv- 
ed. I  was  not  a  little  affected  by  your  expressions  of  affection 
for  me  as  your  brother  in  Christ,  as  well  as  by  natural  ties. 
But  Oh,  this  pleasing  prospect  which  dehghts  your  soul,  I  feel 
as  though  I  dare  not  entertain.  You  express  your  satisfaction 
that  I  descend  into  particulars,  as  it  will  enable  you  to  judge  of 
my  progress  in  the  divine  hfe.  Alas!  I  fear  my  progress,  if 
any,  will  be  scarcely  discernible. 

I  lately  joined  in  communion  with  the  Presbyterian  church, 
and  made  a  pubhc  profession  of  my  faith  in  Christ.  I  had  for 
some  time  previous,  ex|)erienced  a  strong  desire  to  commemo- 
rate the  dying  love  of  the  glorious  fiiend  of  sinners.  I  hoped 
I  had  something  of  that  hungering  and  thirsting  for  the  bread 
of  lile,  which  our  Lord  has  promised  to  accompany  with  his 


xxvi 


MEMOIR. 


blessing.  After  consulting  with  some  of  my  pious  friends,  and 
putting  up  some  poor  |)etitions  on  the  subject,  1  determined  "  to 
go  forward."  But  I  fear  there  was  an  "  Achan  in  the  camp." 
On  approaching  the  table  of  the  Lord,  instead  of  findmg  my 
heart  to  "  melt  like  wax  in  the  midst  of  my  bowels,"  as  1  had 
supposed,  it  was  harder  than  flint  and  colder  than  ice.  In- 
stead of  drawing  near  to  my  Saviour  and  my  (jod,  by  faith 
and  prayer,  I  could  not  even  adopt  the  language  of  the  publi- 
can. I  gave  up  all  for  lost,  and  concluded  myself  to  be  a  devil 
incarnate.  I  was,  however,  taught  a  useful  lesson.  I  had  not 
before  discovered  my  heart  was  so  deceitful  and  desperately 
wicked.  You  can  better  judge  of  my  feehngs  in  this  state  of 
mind  than  I  can  describe  them.  I  was  left  some  hours  with- 
out any  evidence  of  grace  that  I  could  discern — and  under 
strong  apprehension  of  having  eaten  and  drunk  damnation  to  my- 
self. But  Oh!  my  brother,  if  I  am  not  mistaken,  my  gracious 
Lord  and  Master  was  the  same  evening  pleased  to  give  me  a  look 
as  he  did  his  disciple  Peter,  after  he  had  denied  him,  and  when 
"  thereon  I  wept,"  Oh,  my  brother,  how  delicious,  how  sweet, 
how  comforting,  the  penitential  te-ar! 

I  have  smce,  again  joined  in  communion,  and  have  been 
again  in  a  great  measure  disappointed.  On  serious  examination, 
I  am  led  to  believe  I  have  not  that  due  and  thorough  preparation 
of  heart,  which  is  necessary  for  the  communicant.  I  fear  I  had 
not  forsaken  all — ^that  I  had  "  kept  back  part  of  the  price." 

Although  I  am  frequently  in  great  darkness,  and  have  been 
greatly  assaulted  by  the  world,  the  flesh,  and  the  devil,  and 
although  I  have  frequently,  for  a  time,  given  up  all  hope,  yet 
I  cannot  but  say,  that  the  evidences  in  my  favor  have,  upon 
the  whole, .  increased.  I  find  that  the  Christian  course  is  a 
warfare — that  the  enemies  to  be  encountered  are  numerous  and 
strong,  and  whenever  I  attempt  to  go  in  my  own  strength,  I 
am  sure  to  be  defeated.  At  different  times,  when  I  have  drawn 
the  conclusion  that  I  was  destitute  of  gi-ace,  I  have  labored  at 
the  covenant  of  works;  but,  as  might  be  exp€*cted,  all  in  vain. 
I  can  find  no  satisfaction,  no  hope,  unless  when  I  discern  that 
Jesus  is  my  righteousness  and  strength.  I  am  sometimes  great- 
ly oppressed  with  spiritual  sloth;  it  seems  as  though  I  could  not 
make  any  exertion;  and  although  I  acknowledge  my  solemn  and 
awful  obligations  to  use  with  diligence  all  the  appointed  means 
of  grace,  and  to  work  out  my  own  salvation  with  fear  and 
trembling,  yet  I  feel  that  it  is  indeed  God  that  must  work  in  me 
both  to  will  and  to  do.  Yours,  &c.  O.  J. 


MEMOIR. 


xxvii 


Steubenville,  Dec.  18,  1810. 
Dear  Brother, — Do  give  me  some  detail  of  your  exercises, 
— let  me  know  whether  you  have  overcome  the  workings  of 
unbelief, — whether  you  never  feel  backwardness  of  duty,  dead- 
ness,  lifelessness,  and  formality,  in  the  service  of  God.  Whether 
you  are  no  longer  oppressed  with  blindness  of  mind,  hardness 
of  heart,  nvanderings  of  mind  in  public  or  secret  prayer.  For 
my  own  part,  1  lind  new  enemies  in  addition  to  those  with  which 
I  have  been  conflicting.  I  find  the  pride  of  my  heart  to  be  one 
of  my  most  dangerous  enemies;  and  it  lately  brought  me  into  a 
snare,  of  which  I  was  not  aware.  I  was  foolish  enough  to  think 
I  had  become  in  a  great  degree  insensible  to  the  applause  of  the 
world.  There  was  lately  a  most  horrid  murder  committed  near 
Union  Town.  The  parents  of  the  girl  murdered  are  my  neigh- 
bors, and  they  insisted  on  my  undertaking  the  prosecution  of 
the  murderer.  The  murderer  was  defended  by  some  ol'  the 
ablest  advocates  in  Pennsylvania.  The  prosecution  rested  on 
me  alone.  My  father,  who  had  business,  was  present.  I 
never  was  placed,  in  the  business  of  my  profession,  in  a  more 
trying  situation.  Instead  of  meeting  with  disgrace,  as  I  very 
much  feared,  I  received  so  many  compliments,  (notwithstanding 
the  murderer  was  acquitted — the  evidence  was  only  presump- 
tive,) that  the  subtle  poison  stole  into  my  soul.  For  a  consider- 
able time,  I  thought  myself  something,  when  I  was  nothing. 
And,  to  confess  the  truth,  I  still  feel  so  much  of  the  same  prin- 
ciple, that  I  am  almost  tempted  to  erase  the  line  which  contains 
a  relation  of  the  incident. 

Yours,  &C.  O.  J. 


Extracts  from  other  letters,  written  in  the  subsequent  part  of 
the  life  of  the  subject  of  the  preceding  memoir  would  be  given, 
if  want  of  room  did  not  necessarily  preclude  them. 


TO  THE  READER. 

It  may  be  necessary  to  say,  that  the  subsequent  exhibition 
of  the  principles  and  meiisures  of  *Bisho])  Campbell,  and  the 
reasoning  on  them,  is  the  work  of  the  deceased  author,  so  far 
as  the  "  conclusion,"  which  is  added  by  the  present  writer. 
The  notes  in  the  "  Appendix,"  are  likewise  from  the  pen  of 
Dr.  Jennings,  excepting  the  two  last  ones.  It  will  be  seen,  that 
the  subjects  discussed  in  the  debate,  were  sutficiently  written 
out  during  the  life  of  the  author.  This,  it  is  necessary  to  state,  as 
an  impression  has  been  attempted  to  be  made,  (and  it  may  again 
be  attempted,)  that  I  wrote  out  a  debate,  which  I  never  heard. 
The  subject  of  Mr.  C.'s  disinterestedness,  which  he  intro- 
duced in  the  conclusion  of  his  remarks,  could  be  equally  well 
examined  by  one  acquainted  with  the  facts,  whether  he  was 
present  or  absent  at  the  time  of  the  discussion.  In  reviewing 
the  manuscripts,  previous  to  sending  them  to  the  press,  I  have 
made  no  alteration. 

He  considered  the  cause  of  truth,  the  welfare  of  men,  and  the 
good  of  Mr.  Campbell  himself  required,  that  in  the  debate,  and 
in  the  following  pages,  he  should  obey  the  apostolic  direction 
in  such  cases,  and  "  rebuke  sharply,"  though  he  was  called  to 
do.it  unexpectedly,  and  against  his  natural  inclination.  And  I 
am  not  conscious  that  in  a  single  sentence  in  the  volume,  injus- 
tice is  done  to  the  individual  who  occasioned  the  discussion. 
The  peculiar  fgrce  of  the  author's  vmnner  of  speaking,  could 
not,  of  course,  be  conveyed  to  the  pages  of  a  book;  but  there  is 
so  much  useful  instruction,  faithful  exhibition,  acute,  but  just 
severity,  throughout,  fhat  the  important  objects  which  constrain- 
ed him  first  to  speak,  and  afterwards  to  write,  will  be  in  a  good 
degree  accomplished,  and  public  expectation  be  realized. 

The  part  which  the  present  writer  performs  in  issuing  this 
book,  is,  in  consequence  of  one  of  the  last  requests  of  his  uncle; 
and  for  the  cause  of  evangelical  truth.  If  there  are  proceeds 
from  the  work,  beyond  what  is  necessary  to  defray  the  expenses 
of  publication,  they  will  all  go  to  the  immediate  family  of  the 
deceased,  who  are  entitled  to  some  remuneration  for  the  time 
and  labor,  he  spent  during  the  last  months  of  his  declining  life, 
in  writing  that  which  is  now  printed.  S.  C.  Jennings. 

*  This  appellation,  is  given  to  Mr.  Campbell  in  many  places  through- 
out the  book,  apparently  for  the  sake  of  conveniency.  The  origin  of  its 
application  to  him  by  the  public,  was,  I  presume,  the  seeing  the  name, 
*' Bishop  Campbell,"  announced  in  the  public  papers,  when  he  intended 
to  preach. 


DEBATE. 


PART  I. 

OCCASION  or  THE  DISCUSSION— A  STATEMENT  OF  TBE 
VIEWS,  EXHIBITED  IN  THE  FIRST  DISCUSSION,  &<t. 

That  the  system  of  Mr.  Alexander  Campbell,  of 
Bethany,  Brook  County,  Virginia,  is  calculated  and  de- 
signed to  exclude  all  true  spirituality  from  the  religion  of 
the  Bible,  must  be  apparent  to  ever}^  impartial  and  intel- 
ligent inquirer  for  truth,  who  seriously  examines  it;  that 
it  is  in  fact  a  system  of  infidehty  somewhat  disguised,  it  is 
conceived,  he  himself  has  lately  given,  both  in  his  wri- 
tings and  public  harangues,  the  most  decisive  proof  This 
more  plenary  evidence  of  the  true  nature  and  design  of  his 
religious  sentiments,  was  not,  however,  necessary  to  fas- 
ten upon  the  minds  of  a  great  majority  of  the  pious  com- 
munity, the  coni'iction.  which  has  long  been  felt,  that  he  is 
one  of  the  most  dangerous  "  false  teachers"  that  has  ap- 
peared in  our  country. 

I  had  learned,  since  my  removal  to  Tennessee,  that  in 
this  South  \\'estern  region,  Mr.  C.  had,  by  some  means, 
acquired  a  reputation,  as  well  for  learning  as  for  a  superi- 
ority of  intellect,  to  which,  it  is  believed,  and  now  generally 
acknowledged,  (at  least  in  Nashville  and  its  vicinity,)  he 
w^as  by  no  means  justly  entitled;  w^hich,  nevertheless,  was 
calculated  to  facilitate  the  propagation  of  his  views,  and 
the  accomplishment  of  his  purposes.  When,  therefore,  it 
was  publicly  announced  that  he  would  visit  and  spend 
some  time  in  Nashville,  and  the  vicinity,  in  December 
last,*  I  was  induced,  as  I  trust  were  others  also,  to  prav, 

*  Th«as  pajes  wore  mitten  during  the  summer  and  autumn  of  1831. 
4 


30 


DEB  A  TIT  OS 


that  when  the  enemy  should  come  in  as  a  flood>.theSpint 
of  the  Lord  would  lift  up  a  standard  against  his  dangerous- 
and  destructive  errors.  With  regard  to  the  particular 
character  or  mode  of  the  standard  which,  it  was  hoped,  the 
Spirit  of  the  Lord  would  lift  up  upon  the  approach  of  the- 
enemy,  I  can,  with  truth,  say,  I  had  formed  no  opinion; 
and  consequently  I  entertained  not  the  least  expectation^ 
that,  in  the  providence  of  God,  I  should  be  called  to  be  its 
bearer.  In  short,  I  have  never  been,  either  in  inclination 
or  by  habit,  a  theological  disputant,  nor  had  I  any  inten- 
tion, whatever,  of  encountering  Mr.  C.  in  a  public  debate. 
Though  we  had  resided  near  each  other,  for  more  than 
twenty  years,  we  had  not  the  slightest  personal  acquaint- 
ance, nor  had  I,  before  his  arrival  in  Nashville,  ever  heard 
one  of  his  public  harangues.  When,  therefore,  he  pub- 
licly hold  forth  in  the  Baptist  church,,  on  the  evening  of 
Friday,  the  10th  of  December,  as  stated  by  him  in  his 
narrative,  I  was  induced,  with  many  others,  to  attend- 
On  that  occasion,,  he  made  a  display  of  his  learning  by 
speaking  much  about  muster  ion,  the  original  of  the  w^ord 
mystery,  which  is  so  frequently  used  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment. He  was  very  liberal  in  denunciations  of  the  several 
sects  of  evangelical  Christians,  and  described  the  preach- 
ers of  the  gospel  among  them,  as  mere  teachers  of  mys- 
ticism.  In  short,  both  the  manner  and  the  matter  of  the 
exhibition,  seemed  to  be  so  calculated  to  excite  disgust* 
that  I  felt  determined  in  my  own  mind,  that  as  it  was  the 
first,  time  I  had  ever  heard'Mr.  so  also  it  should  be  the 
last.  Nor  was  my  purpose  altered  by  his  proposing  a 
meeting,  the  next  evening,  to  hear  any  thing  that  might 
be  objected  against  the  principles  he  had  advanced,  in 
what  he  was  pleased  to  call  his  introductory  to  a  course 
of  lectures,  which  he  intended  to  deliver  before  he  left 
this  region.  Accordingly,  I  went  the  next  evening  to  the 
Lyceum,  to  hear  a  lecture  on  language.  After  having 
arrived  there,  but  not  until  it  was  quite  dark,  I  was  in- 
formed, that  one  of  our  Methodist  brethren  expected  that 
evenincT  to  discuss  with  A.  Campbell  an  important  f>oint 
141  theology.    I  thereupon  felt  so  strong  a  desire  to  hear 


CAMPBELLISM, 


ihe  discussion,  that  I  was  induced  to  leave  the  Lyceum, 
and  repair  to  the  Baptist  church.  When  I  arrived,  the 
meeting  had  been  opened;  and  Mr.  Campbell  was  on  his 
feet,  but  just  concluding  an  address,  of  which  I  barely 
heard  sufficient  to  understand,  that  the  way  was  then 
prepared  to  hear  any  objections  that  might  be  offered.  I 
took  a  seat  with  no  other  intention  than  that  of  being  a 
silent  spectator,  and  hearer  of  whatever  might  be  done 
and  said  whilst  1  remained  in  the  chur<ih. 

I  have  been  thus  particular^  in  the  foregoing  statement 
of  facts,  in  themseives  unimportant,  because  it  has  been 
represented  by  some,  and  supposed  or  believed  by  many, 
that  I  went  to  the  Baptist  church  on  Saturday  evening,  the 
11th  of  December,  prepared  for,  and  desiring  to  provoke 
a  public  debate  with  Mr.  Campbell.  And  because  he 
himself  in  his  narrative,  after  stating  tho  purpose  of  the 
meeting  that  evening,  to  be,  to  give  "  a  favorable  oppor- 
tunity for  a  familiar  conversation  to  such  as  had  any  thing 
to  inquire,  object,  or  propose  relative  to  the  principles  as- 
sumed in  his  introductory  address,"  would  seem  to  in- 
sinuate, that  I  abruptly  broke  in  upon  the  established  order 
of  the  meeting,  by  rising  and  speaking  nearly  an  hour, 
A^c.  Whatever  was  the  intended  mode  of  proceeding  at 
that  meeting,  I  certainly  did  not  understand  it  as  designed 
-for  a  familiar  conversation;  and  that  Mr.  C.  him  sell,  xlid 
not  so  understand  it,  or,  at  least,  that  he  did  not  thus  con- 
duct it,  will  be  evident  from  what  follows,  and  which,  it 
is  not  supposed  that  any,  even  of  his  warmest  friends  or 
-admirers,  will  venture  to  contradict. 

When  Mr.  C.  had  thus  prepared  the  way  to  hear  ob- 
jections, and  taken  his  seat,  a  short  interval  of  silence 
ensued,  during  which  I  observed  Mr.  C.  to  whisper  some- 
thing m  the  ear  of  his  "  brother,  (and  coadjutor,)  J.  Creath, 
who  had  accompanied  him  from  Kentucky,  who  imme- 
diately rose,  and  made  a  suggestion,  as  coming  from 
himself,  although  it  must  have  been  evident  to  all  that 
part  of  the  audience  who  had  noticed  what  had  previously 
taken  place,  that  the  ^ggestion  was  Mr.  CampbelPs, 
which  was,— that  as  no  one  appeared  to  offer  any  objec- 


32 


DEBATE  Olf 


tions,  he  had  no  doubt  it  would  be  gratifvin.j^  to  the  audi- 
ence to  hear  liim  (Mr.  C.)  discuss/mure'  iullv,  a  subject, 
which  he  had  but  very  cursorily  noticed  the  previous 
evening,  viz.  "  that  mysterious  faith;'  about  which  so 
much  was  said,  adding  at  the  "^sarne  time,  that  it  was 
alleged  by  some  there  were  many  mvsteries  in  the  gospel, 
and  gave  as  an  instance  what  he  called.  "  the  mystery  of 
the  five  points,"  alluding  to  the  points  ot  (l(Kirine  concern- 
ing wliich  the  Calvinistic  and  Arminiaii  cliurches  arc 
divided  in  sentiment.  Thus  was  the  solemn  farce  intro- 
duced and  attempted  to  be  played.  Mr.  C.  himself,  does 
not  say  that  objections  were  proposed  bv,  but  "  thrmigh 
brother  J.  Crcath;"  whilst  he  is  <'iiretiil  not  to  inform  the 
public  by  whom,  what  he  calls objections,  <fcc."  were 
thus  proposed.  Whilst  he  selected  liis  ov  n  subject,  he 
evidently,  wished  that  it  might  appear,  as  though  he  had 
been  called  upon  to  discuss  a  subject  prop<xsed  by 
another. 

After  Mr.  C.  had  thus  suggested  his  own  subject,  and 
throuc^h  liis  "  brother  J.  ( 'n^ath,"  had  called  u]»  himself  to 
di.cuss  it,  apparently,  in  obedience  to  the  call,  not  how- 
ever iii  the  manner  of  one  about  to  enter  u.])on  a  familiar 
conversation but  in  the  usual  style  of  his  public  harangues, 
he  rose,  and  entered  upon  a  discMission  of  the  nature  of 
that  faith  which  he  alleged  the  g(»s})f^l  required,  and  at- 
tempted to  show,  how,  or  wherein,  it  diflered  from  that 
"  mysterious  faith,"  to  which  he  had,  in  the  mannor  before 
mentioned,  proposed  objections.  After  having  stated, 
what  indeed  he  truly  alleges  I  did  not  deny,  tfiat  testimo- 
ny, and  faith,  or  as  I  would  rather  in  the  abstract,  say, 
beluf  are  correlative  terms,  he  told  us  thnt  his  fundamen- 
tal position  in  relation  to  the  faitli  which  the  gospel  re« 
quires,  or  that  belief  which  is  "  to  the  sai'ins^  of  the  soui;^ 
was,  that,  in  its  nature,  it  is  purely  historical,  consisting 
in  the  belief  of  a  few  simple  facts,  and  not  doctrines^  that 
there  neither  was,  nor  could  there  possibly  be,  any  differ- 
ence between  that  belief  of  the  gospf^l,  which  is  requisite 
to  the  salvation  of  the  soul,  and  that  credence  which  we 
usually,  with  readiness,  yield  to  any  other  well  authentir 


cated  history.  Such  Avas  his  leading  posilicn;  but 
whence  did  he  derive  his  illustrations  and  proof?  From 
the  pure  word  of  God,  which  ^very  enlightened  christian 
will  admit  to  be  the  only  legitimate  source  of  proof  in  re- 
lation to  such  a  subject?  Not  at  all.  Mr.  C.  in  this,  his 
first  speech,  did  not,  according  to  my  recollection,  direct 
the  attention  of  his  audience  to  a  nvgh  passage  of  scrip- 
ture, with  a  view  to  confirm  or  establish  what  he  advanced. 
Whether  he  was  prevented  from  appealing  to  the  word 
of  God  in  support  of  his  position,  by  the  recollection  that 
it  is  therein  written,  "  To  the  law  and  to  the  testimony:  if 
they  speak  not  according  to  this  word,  it  is  because  there 
is  no  light  in  them,"  I  shall  not  undertake  to  determine. 
But  certain  it  is,  that  he  resorted  to  a  resource  for 
illustration  and  proof  of  his  position,  which,  if  it  be  not  as 
j  infallible  as  the  oracles  of  divine  truth,  is  at  feast  of  very 
high  authority,  in  his  own  estimation,  viz.  Himself.  It 
cannot  be  denied  that  Egomei"  "  ipse,^  "  Magna  pars 
fuU^  and  his  own  experience,  are  very  prominent  in  all 
the  writings  and  public  exhibitions  of  Mr.  C.  Not  his 
7'eligious  experience,*  for  of  this  he  seems  to  know  nothing; 
nor  does  it  ever  engage  his  attention,  except  it  be  as  the 
subject  of  ridicule  and  contempt. 

Do  any  ask,  what  other  than  religious  experienx:e  couM 
be  adduced  in  illustration  of  one  of  the  most  important 
subjects  connected  with  the  Christian  religion?  I  reply, 
that  I  know  of  no  distinctive  appellation  whereby  Mr. 
Campbell's  experience,  to  which  he  alluded,  may  be 
recognized;  but  I  will  endeavor  to  describe  it,  as  nearly 
as  I  can  recollect,  in  his  own  language.  In  confirmation 
of  his  doctrine  he  proceeded  to  state,  that  in  his  youth  he 
had  read  three  histoties,^^  one  of  Asia,  on«  of  Africa, 
and  one  of  these  United  States.  That  he  believed  th.em 
all;  of  this  he  was  assured.  But  his  belief  of  the  other 
two,  had  not  the  same  effect  upon  his  mind,  and  did  not 
lead  to  the  formation  and  execution  of  purposes,  in  any 
degree,  like  his  belief  of  the  history  of  this  country.  Thai 
his  belief  in  this  history,  was  fully  equal  to  the  faith  of 

♦  See  note  A  in  Appendix. 
*4 


34 


PEBATE  our 


the  gos}XiI  which  is  connected  with  salvation,  and  was 
productive  of  similar  results.  For  he  was  thereby  in- 
duced to  leave  the  country  of  his  nativity,  (Irelantf,)  to 
forego  all  the  bright  prospects  and  advantages  which 
were  there  presented  to  his  view;  in  a  word,  to  forsake 
all,  and  risk  the  dangers  of  the  miglity  deep,  to  seek  a 
settlement  in  this  country,  with  a  view  to  the  enjoyment 
of  the  privileges  and  advantages  which  he  believed  it 
was  calculated  to  secure.  And  what  better  or  higher 
faith  could  the  gospel  require  than  this,  which  had  exert- 
ed such  a  powerful  influence  on  his  mind?  Mr.  C.  next 
proceeded  to  compare,  or  contrast  this  history,  and  ac- 
cording to  his  views,  the  only  true  faith  of  the  gospel, 
with  that  "  mysterious  faith"  which  had  been  objected  to 
throicgh  his  **  brother  J.  Creath,"  and  which  he  said  was 
represented  by  the  preachers  of  the  gospel  among  tlie 
various  sects,  "  as  a  saving  grace  wrought  some  way  in 
the  heart  by  supernatural  operations."  In  perfect  ac- 
cordance with  the  Unitarian  belief,  in  relation  to  this 
subject,  he  exploded  all  mysteries  from  the  religion  of  the 
Bible,  and  in  substance,  repeated  a  charge  which  he  had 
the  preceding  evening,  in  his  public  harangue,  made 
against  the  ministers  of  the  gospel  of  diflerent  denomina- 
tions, by  declaring  that  they  denied  the  sufficiency  of  the 
revelation,  which  God  had  given  in  his  word,  and  taught 
the  people  to  believe,  in  direct  contradiction  to  that  word, 
dial  tw^o  other,  or  additional  revelations  were  necessary. 
One  of  these  revelations,  and  which  he  intimated  they 
assumed  the  power  to  make,  was  designed  to  remove  the 
veil  or  mystery  in  which  they  represented  the  word  of 
God  to  be  involved.  The  other  was  internal,  and  by  the 
same  teachers  represented  as  necessaiy  to  remove  "  the 
film  from  the  mental  eye,"  and  without  which  the  scrip- 
tures could  not  be  understood. 

Such  were  some  of  the  most  prominent  sentiments  and 
assertions  of  Mr.  C.  which  led  to  the  discussion  which 
t'X>k  place  on  that  occasion.  It  was  not  until  after  Mr. 
C.  had  spoken  at  some  length,  that  I  had  any  thought  of 
making  any  reply.    As  he  proceeded  in  his  observations. 


CAMPBELLISM. 


35 


it  occurred  to  my  mind,  that  considering  the  nature  and 
object  of  the  meeting,  if  no  one  appeaj  cd  to  contradict 
his  statements,  so  far  as  they  were  incorrect,  and  to  de- 
tect and  expose  his  sophistry,  that  it  would  probably  ap- 
pear in  the  view  of  many,  as  though  truth  had  "  fallen  in 
the  street"  -Perceiving,  moreover,  that  the  Methodist 
brother,  who  was  expected  to  have  entered  into  a  discus- 
sion with  Mr.  C.  was  not  present,  and  believing  that  I, 
who  was  providentially,  and  to  myself  unexpectedly, 
present,  was,  by  the  sacred  office  which  I  endeavor  to 
fulfil,  "  set  for  the  defence  of  the  gospel,"  I  resolved 
that  in  dependence  on  promised  grace,  I  would  rise  in 
vindication  of  "  the  truth  as  it  is  in  Jesus." 

Accordingly,  after  Mr.  C.  had  concluded  his  observa- 
tions, it  was  alleged,  in  reply,  that  there  was  a  well  found- 
ed distinction  between  mysteries  and  mysticism.  That 
whilst  all  enlightened,  evangelical  Christians,  of  every 
denomination,  reject  the  latter  as  unscriptural  and  absurd, 
they  do  not  explode  the  former,  believing  as  they  do,  that 
the  scriptui'es  speak  so  distinctly,  not  only  of  things  in 
their  nature  more  or  less  mysterious,  but  of  mysteries, 
that  none  can  mistake  in  this  matter,  who  do  not  shut 
their  eyes  against  the  clear  light  of  revelation. 

That  neither  do  they  believe,  as  do  Unitarians,  and  as 
does  Mr.  C,  that  the  word  mystery  is  used,  in  the  New- 
Testament,  in  no  other  sense  than  that  of  a  thing  kept 
secret  and  hid  from  our  understanding  until  it  be  reveal- 
ed to  us;  but  that  they  believe  the  mysteries  spoken  of  in 
the  word  of  God  to  be  of  two  kinds.  One  kind  is  such 
as  would  never  have  been  known  without  revelation;  but 
when  revealed,  may,  in  a  good  measure,  be  explained  and 
understood.  Such  is  the  doctrine  of  the  forgiveness  of 
sins  "  for  Christ's  sake,"  the  resurrection  from  the  dead, 
and  of  eternal  life  in  a  future  world.  Thus  Paul,  in  the 
coriClusion  of  his  epistle  to  the  Romans,  speaks  of  "  the 
revelation  of  the  mystery,  which  was  kept  secret  since 
the  world  began,  but  now  is  made  manifest,  and  by  the 
scriptures  of  the  prophets,  according  to  the  command- 
nr^ent  of  the  everlasting  God,  made  known  to  all  nations 


36 


DEBATE  Off 


for  the  obedience  of  faith."  That  the  other  sort  of  Jiiys- 
teries  are  those,  wliicli  when  reavealed  to  us,  we  know 
the  existence  or  reahty  and  certainty  of  them,  but  cannot 
comprehend  them,  or  the  manner  of  their  existence.  JSuch 
is  the  mystery  of  the  incarnation  of  Christ,  or  the  union 
of  the  divine  and  human  natiu'es  in  one  person.  Thus 
the  same  apostle,  in  his  first  letter  to  Timothy,  declares: 
**  Without  controversy  great  is  the  m3^stery  of  godliness; 
God  was  manifest  in  the  flesh,"  &c.  In  like  manner,  the 
same  inspired  writer,  in  his  epistle  to  the  Ephesians,  just- 
ly calls  the  spiritual  union  between  Christ  and  his  church, 
which  he  illustrates  by  the  union  between  husband  and 
wife,  "  a  great  mystery^  Thus  we  know  that  the  mys- 
tery of  godliness,  or  that  of  the  Word  made  flesh,  and  the 
mystery  of  the  spiritual  union  between  Christ  and  all  his 
true  disciples,  so  that  they  are  said  to  be  "  members  of 
his  body  and  of  his  flesh  and  of  his  bones,"  not  only  exist, 
but  that  they  are,  beyond  all  controversy,  great;  never- 
theless, we  cannot  comprehend  them,  or  explain  how 
they  exist. 

It  was  then  urged  that  the  term  mysterious,  as  used  by 
Mr.  C.  and  his  "  brother  J.  Creath,"  whether  it  was  de- 
signed to  be  understood  in  this  latter  sense,  or  whether  it 
was  intended  to  be  viewed  as  synonimous  with  the  w^ord 
mystical,  had  no  just  application  to  faith  as  held  by  evan- 
gehcal  christians  of  different  denominations.  That  it  was 
true  they  all  concurred  in  the  utter  rejection  of  the  doc- 
trine, that  all  the  faith  which  the  gospel,  or  its  Author,  re- 
quired, is  merely  a  historical  belief  of  the  facts  recorded 
in  the  New  Testament.  And  for  the  obvious  reason,  that 
they  do  not  believe,  according  to  the  best  view  which 
they  can  take  of  the  scriptures,  that  this  mere  historical 
belief  constitutes  that  faith  whereby  a  sinner  is  justified, 
and  finds  "peace  with  God  through  our  Lord  Jesus 
Christ."  It  is,  indeed,  a  favorite  position  with  Mr.  C.  that 
there  is  but  one  kind  of  faith  spoken  of  in  the  word  of 
God;  and  it  is  true,  that  as  there  is  but  "  one  Lord,"  so 
there  is  but  "  one  faith"  that  is  genuine  in  its  nature,  or 
saving  in  its  character;  but  it  is  also  true  that  the 


CAMPBELLISM. 


apostle  James  speaks  of  a  faith  that  is  dead,  that  "will  not 
save  being  without  works.  "  Thou  believest,  says  the 
apostle,  there  is  one  God;  thou  doest  well:  the  devils  also 
beheve  and  tremble.  But  wilt  thou  know,  O  vain  man, 
tliat  faith  without  works  is  dead?"  It  was  further  stated, 
in  the  reply  to  Mr.  C.  that  we  read,  in  the  12th  chap,  of 
John  (ver.  42.) "  among  the  chief  rulers  also  many  believed 
on  him,  (Christ,)  but  because  of  the  Pharisees  they  did 
not  confess  him,  lest  they  should  be  put  out  of  the  S5^na- 
gogue:  for  they  loved  the  praise  of  men  more  than  the 
praise  of  God."  Here  then  we  have  two  instances  of  a 
faith  or  belief,  spoken  of  in  the  word  of  God,  in  is  nature 
historical,  or  at  least  of  equal  character  and  value,  and 
yet  it  is  presumed  that  even  Mr.  C.  himself  would  not 
contend,  that  it  was  productive  of  any  real  advantage  to 
the  subjects  of  it.  And  such,  it  was  further  urged,  was  the 
faith  or  historical  belief,  of  the  great  mass  of  every  chris-  . 
tian  community,  who  felt  a  conviction  that  the  word  and 
gospel  of  God  are  true,  and  that  Jesus  Christ  therein  re- 
vealed, is  the  only  Saviour  of  sinners.  In  confirmation 
of  this,  it  was  further  observed,  that  it  had  lately  been 
remarked  by  a  worthy  baptist  minister,  in  preaching  a 
-  discourse  on  the  subject  of  faith:  It  is  a  difficult  thing  at 
this  time  of  day,  when  the  truth  of  the  gospel,  in  its  nature 
so  full  and  so  convincing,  is  so  well  understood,  for  a  man 
to  maintain  himself  on  the  infidel  ground,  however  strong 
may  be  his  desire  so  to  do."  Thus  the  great  mass  of  the 
population  of  our  own  country  are,  nominally  or  histori- 
cally, believers  on  the  Son  of  God,  as  the  only  Saviour  of 
sinners  and  of  the  world.  But  will  this  faith,  which  is  not 
accompanied  or  followed  even  by  a  confession  with  the 
mouth,  of  the  Lord  Jesus,  save  them?  Mr.  C.  himself,  must 
admit  that  it  will  not.  What,  then,  becomes  of  his  histor- 
ical faith,  or  of  those  who,  depending  upon  it,  or  resting 
in  a  "  form  of  godliness"  whilst  they  deny  its  power,  cry 
to  themselves  "  peace,  peace,"  when  God  declares  "  there 
is  no  peace?" 

With  regard  to  the  illustration  of  the  nature  of  faith, 
drawn  by  Mr,  C,  from  his  own  conduct  and  experience. 


DEBATE  0!^ 


it  was  replied,  tliat  neither  the  appositeness  nor  force  of  k 
was  perceived.  Besides,  it  was  confidently  believed,  that, 
in  the  estimation  of  the  public  at  large,  Mr.  C.  would  not 
be  considered  as  having  acted  a  very  adventurous,  mer- 
itorious, or  even  disinterested  part,  in  exchanging  Ire- 
land— a  land  groaning  under  the  pressure  of  taxation,  and 
the  heavy  hand  of  oppression,  where  the  poorer  classes* 
of  society  frequently  «ufier  for  the  actual  necessaries  of 
life — for  this  fair  land  of  plenty  and  freedom,  which  pre- 
sents so  many  flattering  prospects  to  the  virtuous  and  the 
enterprising  from  every  country  and  every  clime;  and 
where  Mr*  (X  himself  had,  it  was  believed,  more  than 
realized  all  his  expectations,  I  would,  nevertheless,  add, 
that  the  illustration  of  Mr.  C.  seems  very  aptly  to  eluci- 
date the  principles  upon  which,  it  is  apprehended,  too 
many  (whether  Mr.  is  embraced  among  the  number  I 
will  leave  every  one  to  judge  for  himself,)  make  a  pro- 
fession of  the  religion  of  Christ,  whilst  they  are  historical 
believers,  but  have  not  "  obeyed  from  the  heart  that  form 
of  doctrine,"  which  God  has  given  in  his  word  and  gos- 
pel. Whether  they  be  conscious  of  it  or  not,  it  is  oft^n 
too  evident,  that  the  real  motive  whereby  they  were  in- 
duced to  confess  with  their  mouth  the  Lord  Jesus,  was 
the  hope  of  temporal  advantages,  such  as  wealth,  reputa- 
tion or  influence  over  their  fellow  men;  whereas,  had  no 
such  prospects  presented  themselves  to  their  view,  their 
historical  faith,  however  sincere  and  perfect  in  its  char- 
acter it  may  have  been,  would  no  more  have  influenced 
them  publicly  to  profess  Christ,  than  did  Mr.  Campbell's 
belie  f  of  the  history  of  Africa  induce  him  to  take  up  his 
residence  among  the  Hottentots.  This  leads  me  to  observe 
that  it  was  farther,  in  reply  to  Mr.  C,  urged  as  a  decisive 
objection  to  his  view  of  faith,  that,  in  thousands  of  in- 
stances, it  was  evident  it  had  no  abiding  practical  influ- 
ence upon  the  hearts  or  lives  of  such  as  historically  be- 
lieved the  word  of  God  and  the  gospel  of  his  Son.  And 
therefore,  it  might  be  fairly  argued  or  inferred  that  in  no 


See  note  B, 


CAMPBELLISM. 


39 


case,  was  a  mere  historical  faith  productive  of  a  perma- 
nent and  universal  change  of  the  human  character,  simi- 
lar to  that  produced  by  the  "  faith  which  worketh  by 
love."  A  change  of  character,  such  as  was  exemplified^ 
m  an  eminent  degree,  in  the  case  of  Paul,  who  could  say, 
"  I  am.  crucified  with  Christ,  nevertheless  I  five,  yet  not 
I,  but  Christ  hveth  in  me,  and  the  life  which  I  live  in  the 
flesh  I  live  by  the  faith  of  the  Son  of  God,  who  loved  me 
and  who  gave  himself  for  me."  This  objection  was, 
moreover,  illustrated  and  confirmed  by  a  case  which  ac- 
tually occurred  within  the  range  of  my  own  limited 
acquaintance.  A  yo*ung,  but  intelligent,  female,  being 
urged  by  a  proselyting  follower  of  Mr.  C.  to  be  immerse^ 
objected,  among  other  things,  that  she  had  not  the  faith 
requisite  to  constitute  her  a  disciple  of  Christ.  By  way 
of  answer  to  her  objection,  she  was  asked  if  she  did  not 
hi  stoically  believe  the  gospel,  or  the  history  of  our  Lord 
and  Saviour  Jesus  Christ;  and  was,  at  the  same  time, 
assured  by  him  that  this  was  all  the  faith  required.  To 
this  she  made,  in  substance,  the  following  reply.  That  she 
could  not  doubt  the  reality  or  sincerity  of  her  historical 
belief  of  all  that  was  contained  in  the  Bible,  because,  of 
the  existence  of  this  belief,  she  was  as  conscious  as  she 
was  of  her  own  existence:  but  that  she  was  no  less  cer- 
tain, that  this  belief  was  different  from  that  faith  which  is 
the  peculiar  characteristic  of  all  the  true  disciples  of 
Christ,  because  this  historical  belief  did  not  exert  any 
suitable  or  lasting  influence,  either  upon  her  heart  or  her 
life.  This  judicious  reply,  it  would  seem,  was  found  to 
be  unanswerable,  and  put  an  end  to  the  attempt  to  pro- 
selyte her  to  Campbellism. 

It  was  still  further  urged  in  reply  to  Mr.  C,  on  this 
part  of  the  subject  in  debate,  that  if  it  was  thus  charac- 
teristic of  historical  faith  to  be  unproductive  of  good  and 
lasting  fruit,  much  more  palpably  would  this  be  the  case, 
if  it  consisted,  as  Mr.  Campbell  asserted,  in  the  historical 
belief  of  the  facts  related  in  the  New  Testament,  separa- 
ted from  the  doctrines  with  which  such  facts  stand  con* 
Docted.    Thus,  if  it  were  possible  to  strip  the  facts  oonr 


40 


DEBATE  OBT 


tained  in  the  gospel  history  of  the  doctrines  with  wliich 
they  are  not  only  intimately,  but  inseparably,  connecioJ, 
so  as  simply  to  believe  the  facts,  that  Jesus  Chrisi,  of 
Nazareth,  was  born  under  the  reign  of  Augustus  Ccesar, 
and  was  crucified  as  a  malefactor  under  Pontius  Pilate, 
upon  Mount  Calvary,  near  Jerusalem, — how  would  this 
belief  influence  the  heart  of  any  man  to  the  exercise  of 
right  affections  towards  God  and  his  neighbor;  or  his  life, 
so  that  it  should  be  habitually  conformed  to  the  law  of 
God,  any  more  than  would  the  belief  that  Julius  Csesar 
was  assassinated  at  Rome.* 

In  justice,  however,  to  Mr.  C,  it  must  be  admitted,  that 
w^hilst  he  contended  that  a  simple  historical  belief  of  facts 
constituted  the  true  and  only  faith  of  the  gospel,  he,  at 
the  same  time,  alleged  that  it  was  not  a  faith  that  was 
wholly  ino|>erative  that  would  avail  any  thing;  but  such 
as  w^ould  produce  at  least  one  supposed  good  work  or  act 
of  obedience,  which  he  calls  an  act  of  faith.  According 
to  the  views  of  Mr.  C,  then,  if  a  person  be  a  true  historic^ 
believer,  he  will  submit  to  be  immersed,  which  he  pro- 
fessesf  to  believe  to  be  all-important,  and,  as  it  would 
seem,  essential  to  salvation;  inasmuch  as  it  is,  by  thi^ 
supposed  act  of  faith,  and  by  this  alone,  according  to  his 
creed,  a  sinner  is  not  only  justified,  but  adopted,  pardon- 
ed, sanctified  and  saved:  whilst  all  such  as  have  not  thus 
submitted  to  immersion  are  by  him  pronounced  to  be  in 
a  state  of  condemnation.  But  Mr.  C.  does  not  seem  to 
be  aware  of  the  inconsistency,  not  to  say  absurdity,  of 
his  view  of  faith  arising  from  the  fact  which  I  have 
established,  as  well  from  the  case  of  the  Pharisees  who 
believed,  but  did  not  confess  the  Saviour,  as  from  the 
circumstance  which  cannot  be  controverted  that  there 
are  multitudes  in  every  christian  land  who  historically 
believe  but  do  not  obey  the  gosp^,  so  that  in  a  vast  ma- 
jority of  cases  this  historical  faith  is  unproductive  even  of 
the  semblance  of  that  obedience  of  the  heart  which  God 
regards.  Thus  he  makes  the  genuineness  of  faith  to  de- 
pend, not  upon  its  properties,   but  upon  its  supposed 

»  Soe  nato  C  t  S©«  note  D. 


CAMPBELLISM. 


41 


quality  or  strength.  What  would  be  the  estimation  of  the 
skill  of  the  professed  metallurgist,  who  should  pretend  to 
assay  gold  upon  a  similar  principle?  As  every  particle  of 
gold,  however  small  it  may  be,  is  intrinsically  valuable, 
and  can  be  distinguished,  not  only  from  dross,  but  any 
other  metal,  however  it  may  happen  to  be  mixed  with 
one  or  the  other;  so,  it  is  not  only  evident  from  the  word 
of  God,  but  in  accordance  with  the  enhghtened  judgment 
of  every  impartial  man,  that  every  degree  of  true  or  genu- 
ine faith  is,  intrinsically,  and,  as  it  regards  the  cardinal 
point  of  our  justification  in  the  sight  of  God,  and  our  accep- 
tance whh  him,  equally  valuable. 

Thus  we  are  not  only  said  by  Paul,  to  be  justified  by 
faith,  (be  it  weak  or  strong,)  whereby  we  have  peace 
with  God  through  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  but  the  same 
Apostle  directs  such  as  are  weak  in  the  faith  to  be  re- 
ceived, but  not  to  doubtful  disputations.  As  this  seems 
confessedly  not  to  be  the  case  with  historical  faith,  it 
follows  that  it  cannot  be  the  faith  whereby  Abraham  was 
justified,  and  the  elders  obtained  a  good  report:  or  the 
faith  whereby  Abel  otTered  unto  God  a  more  acceptable 
sacrifice  than  Cain,  who,  it  would  seem,  in  the  offering 
which  he  made,  was  actuated  by  something  very  similar 
to  the  historical  faith  of  Mr.  Campbell. 

The  unscriptural  character,  as  well  as  absurdity  of 
Mr.  C.'s  view  of  faith  will  further  and  still  more  palpably 
appear,  from  the  position  which  he  attempts  to  maintain 
that  a  sinner  is  not  justified  by  faith,  or  that  exercise  of  the 
heart  whereby  a  sinner  flees  for  refuge  to  lay  hold  of 
Christ  as  the  hope  set  before  him,  but  by  or  through 
immersion,  which  as  has  been  seen,  he  calls  an  act  of  faith. 
It  would  seem,  from  this  view  of  justification  taken  by 
Mr,  C,  as  though  he  himself  was  doubtful  of  the  sufliciency 
of  his  historical  faith,  and  therefore  immersion  is  brought 
in  to  aid  its  efficacy.  But  be  that  as  it  may,  we  not  only 
are  clearly  taught  in  the  scriptures,  that  being  justified 
by  faith  (not  by  any  supposed  act  of  mere  external  obedi- 
ence) we  have  peace  with  God  through  our  Lord  Jesus 
Christ;"  but  that  it  is  "  with  the  heart  man  believeth  unto 
5 


42 


DEBATE  OS 


righteousness.  Can  it  then  be  doubted,  that  the  inslar>t 
a  man  thus  believes  "  with  the  heart  unto  righteousness;"" 
or  that  iin  the  same  moment  that  he  truly,  by  faith,  re- 
ceives or  lays  hold  of  the  Lord  Jesus,  as  the  LORD,  or 
Jehovah  his  righteousness,  he  is  justified  freely,  through 
the  redemption  that  is  in  Christ  Jesus,  according  to  tlie 
riclies  of  his  grace? 

Now  let  us  apply  these  remarks,  or  rather  the  clear 
passages  from  the  word  therein  cited,  to  the  case  of  the 
eunuch,  whereby  we  shall  be  enabled  to  determine  not 
only  the  nature  of  his  faith,  and  whether  he  was  justified 
before,  or  in  consequence  of  his  baptism,  but  also,  and 
that  upon  safe  grounds,  to  pronounce  a  judgment  upon  the 
whole  subject  of  this  historical  faith  of  Mr.  C. 

It  is  then  most  clearly  manifest  that  Philip  did  not 
baptize  the  eunuch  upon  his  profession  of  a  mere  histori- 
cal  faith,  or  such  a  profession  as  Mr.  C.  and  his  followers- 
would  deem  sufficient;  for  if  he  and  they  be  not  grossly 
misunderstood,  they  exclude  all  supposed  exercises,  at 
least  religious  exercises  of  the  heart,  alleging  that  we 
might  as  w^ell  speak  of  the  religion,  not  only  of  the  head^ 
but  of  the  hand  or  the  foot,  as  of  tlie  heart.  But  it  evidently 
appears  that  the  eunuch  rcceived  baptism,  in  consequence 
of  the  reason  which  Philip  had  to  conclude,  that  he  had 
believed; .  or,,  at  least,  that  he  did  then,  before  his  baptism, 
receive  the  Lord  Jesus  and  did  believe  on  him,  not 
merely  historicaUy,  but  with  his  heart,  nay,  w^ith  all  his 
heart.  "  See,  here  is  water,"  said  the  eunuch,  "  what 
doth  hinder  me  to  be  baptized?  If  thou  believest  with  all 
thine  heart  thou  mayest,"  was  the  evangelist's  reply.  But 
if  the  eunuch  believed  with  the  heart,  as  Phihp  had,  and 
as  we  have,  just  ground  to  conclude  he  did,  then  it  is  not 
only  evident  that  his  faith  was  of  a  higher  and  nobler 
character  than  that  which  is  simply  histor^ical,  but  that  he 
thereby  was  forthwith  justified,  or  believed  "  unto  righte- 
ousness," even  "  the  righteousness  of  faith;"  and  that  too 
before  he  received  baptism,  which  he  afterwards  receiv- 
ed, as  the  "  s^eal  of  the  righteousness  of  faith  which  he 
had."  w^hile  as  yet  he  was  unbaptized. 


CAMPBELLISM. 


43 


The  mefficacy  of  Mr.  C.'s  historical  faith,  as  well  as 
the  evident  failure  of  baptism  in  consequence  of  such  faith 
to  cleanse  from  the  power  or  pollution  of  sin,  can  be 
clearly  demonstrated  from  the  case  of  Simon  the  sorcer- 
er. This  case  was  cursorily  adverted  to  in  the  course  of 
the  debate  with  Mr.  C,  and  I  beg  leave,  in  connection 
with  this  part  of  the  subject,  to  notice  it  more  particular- 
ly. The  position,  then,  which  I  take  in  relation  to  this 
case,  is,  That  not  only  at  the  time  he  received  baptism  at 
the  hands  of  Philip,  there  was,  in  the  judgment  of  charity, 
good  ground  to  conclude  that  Simon  had  believed  "  with 
the  heart,"  (for  we  cannot  suppose  Philip  would  require 
of  him  less  than  he  afterwards  required  of  the  eunuch,) 
but  that,  in  fact,  he  was  sincerely,  so  far  as  a  man  whose 
heart  has  not  been  renewed  by  the  grace  of  God  is  sus- 
ceptible of  sincerity,  a  historical  believer.  He  not  only 
heard  from  the  mouth  of  Philip  the  histmy  of  "  the  things 
concerning  the  kijigdom  of  God,  and  the  name  of  Jesus 
Christ,"  but  he  had  a  strong  attestation  of  the  truth  of  those 
^things  in  the  miracles  which  Philip  did,  and  wliich  he  in 
common  with  the  people  heard  and  saw. 

Now  that  Simon  was  a  believer,  he  gave,  according  to 
the  views  of  Mr.  C.,  the  highest  possible  evidence  that  can 
436  afforded  to  any,  unless  it  be,  perhaps,  to  God  who  tries 
the  hearts  of  men, — he  was  baptized,  or  as  Mr.  C.  would 
say,  immersed.  And  if  Simon  did,  in  fact,  believe,  it  must, 
■according  to  the  views  of  Mr.  G.,  have  been  with  a  his- 
torical faith,  for  he  admits  the  existence  of  none  other. 
Therefore,  according  to  his  system,  as  soon  as  he  was 
baptized,  Simon  ought  to  have  been,  and  if  the  principles 
or  doctrines  of  Mr.  C.  were  true,  he  would  have  been, 
•''justified,  pardoned,  adopted,  sanctified  and  saved." 
Yet  we  shortly  afterwards,  hear  the  apostle  Peter,  who 
evidently  proceeded  according  to  the  rule  of  judgment 
given  by  his  and  our  common  Master,  "  by  their  fruits  ye 
shall  know  them,"  declaring  to  this  man,  "  Thou  hast 
neither  part  nor  lot  in  this  matter;  for  thy  heart  is  not 
right  in  the  sight  of  God.  For  I  perceive  that  thou  art  in 
the  gall  of  bitterness,  and  in  the  bond  of  iniquity."    It  is 


44 


DEBATE  ON 


vain  for  Mr.  C.  to  say,  (and  yet  it  was  all  he  did,  or  could 
say,)  in  answer  to  this  view  of  the  case  of  Simon,  "  that 
he  was  not  a  believer,  but  acted  the  part  of  a  hypocrite." 
That  he  was  not  the  subject  of  that  faith  whereby  a  sinner 
is  justified,  and  finds  peace  with  God,  is  readily  admitted; 
but  that  he  believed  historically,  he  not  only,  as  we  have 
already  seen,  furnished,  according  to  Mr.  C.'s  own  prin- 
ciples, the  highest  evidence,  but  wiiat  is  still  more,  we  are 
expressly  infonned  by  the  pen  and  Spirit  of  inspiration, 
that  "  Simon  himself  believed  also,"  or  in  common  with 
many  others.  And  that  he  was  sincere,  in  the  profession 
of  his  faith,  according  to  the  explanation  of  the  kind  of 
sincerity  he  was  capable  of  exercising,  is  evinced,  not 
only  from  the  fact,  that  "  when  he  was  baptized,  he  con- 
tinued with  Philip,  and  wondered,  Ijeholdiiig  the  miracles 
and  signs  which  w^ere  done:"  but  by  the  impressive  and 
very  trying  circumstance,  that  the  open  profession  of  the 
religion  of  the  Lord  Jesus  which  he  thus  made,  implied, 
and,  most  likely,  was  accompanied  with,  a  pubhc  confes- 
sion of  the  abominable  imposture  which  he  had  practised, 
and  the  diabohcal  sorceries  with  which,  for  a  long  time, 
he  had  bewitched  the  people  of  Samaria.  Thus  it  is  evi- 
dent, not  only  that  Simon  was  a  histoncal  believer,  and 
for  aught  that  appears  in  the  record  of  his  case,  as  sin- 
cere, at  least  for  a  time,  in  his  belief,  as  Mr.  C.  or  any  of  ^ 
his  followers  who  have  no  other  and  better  faith,  than  j 
that  which  is  merely  historical.  But  it  also  appears,  that 
the  faith  of  Simon  underwent,  at  least  one  trial,  in  its 
nature  more  severe  than  Mr*  C.  ever  endured  in  leaving 
his  native  country;  and  that  for  any  thing  the  public  know 
of  his  history,  it  would  seem  greater  than  any  he  has  been 
called  to  undergo,  in  consequence  of  his  professed  histori- 
cal faith  in  the  gospel.  And  yet  the  faith  of  Simon  was 
radically  defective.  Do  any  inquire  wherein  its  defect 
consisted?  I  answer,  not  in  degree,  but  in  kind.  It  was 
not  (and  such  is  the  defect  of  all  mere  historical  faith)  of  . 
the  sort  of  belief,  "  which  is  to  the  saving  of  the  soul.'* 
It  was  not  that  faith  whereby  God,  according  to  his  own  ; 
word,  purifies  the  heart    It  was  not  that  faith  wherein,  i 


CAMl'BELLjSM. 


45 


and  whereby  alone,  any  man  can  overcome  the  world. 
Hence,  notwithstanding  his  faith  and  consequent  baptism 
or  pubhc  profession  of  religion,  "  his  heart  was  not  right 
in  the  sight  of  God."  His  heart  was  still  under  the  do- 
minion of  covetousness  and  ambition;  and  although  }\\s 
faith  had  withstood  one  trial,  yet  when  a  strong  tempta- 
tion was  presented,  his  ruling  passions,  or  those  sins  which, 
especially,  had  the  ascendancy  in  his  heart  prevailed,  and 
his  faith  could  no  longer  withstand.  His  true  characier 
was  then  developed,  ami  it  became  evident  that  he  was 
destitute  of  that {'dith  which  alone  can  constitute  the  fallen 
sons  of  Adam,  the  children  of  Abraham,  the  trial  of  which 
^*  is  more  precious  than  of  gold  which  p^risheth,  and  whicfi 
though  tried  w^ith  fire,  will  be  found  unto  praise,  and 
honor,  and  glory,  at  the  appearing  of  Jesus  Christc'' 
This  faith  which  has  ever  distinguished  the  true  saints  of 
God  in  every  period  of  the  worlds  is  in  itself,  clearly  dis- 
tinguishable from  the  faith  for  which  Mr.  C.  contends,  by 
the  vastly  important  circumstances,  that  in  every  case, 
whether  it  be  strong  like  that  of  "  the  father  of  the  faith- 
ful," or  weak  as  in  the  case  of  those  "  babes  in  Christ." 
of  which  the  apostle  of  the  Gentiles  speaks,  it  is  neverUie- 
iess,  "  according  to  the  measure  of  the  gift  of  Chrisf/' 
productive  of  the  same  fruits,  and  yields,  in  a  degree 
proportioned  to  its  growth  or  strength,  a  ready,  and  um- 
versal,  and  constant  obedience  to  all  the  commands  and 
known  will  of  God.  Its  uniform  language  is  the  same 
that  was  long  since  chaunted  by  the  sw^eet  singer  of 
Israel,  "  Oh!  that  my  ways  were  directed  to  keep  thy 
statutes,  then  shall  I  not  be  ashamed  when  I  have  respect 
unto  all  thy  commandments." 

If  it  should  now  be  objected  by  any,  that  I  have  con- 
demned the  faith  for  which  Mr.  C.  contends  in  the  gross-., 
w{^t  the  lives  and  conversation  of  some  of  his  followers 
furnish,  according  to  my  own  showing,  satisfactory,  or 
at  least  comfortable  evidence,  that  they  are  the  subjects 
of  that  faith  "  which  worketh  by  love,"  and  "  are  of  the 
circumcision  which  worship  God  in  the  spirit,"  who  re- 
joice in  Christ  Jesus  and  have  no  confidence  in  the  fiesh;" 

5* 


46 


DEBATE  ON 


the  reply  is,  that  there  is  reason  to  beheve,  that  not  a 
few,  of  the  character  last  described,  have  been  carried 
about  by  the  dilferent  winds  of  his  ever-varying  doctrine, 
until  they  have  become  bewildered  in  the  mazes  of  error. 
But  if  we  may  credit  the  reports  which  we  lately  begin 
to  hear,  we  have  also  reason  to  believe,  that  many  have 
already  recovered,  and  ground  to  hope  that  many  more 
will,  through  the  grace  of  God,  recover  themselves  out 
of  the  snare — if  not  of  the  devil — at  least,  of  Mr.  Alex- 
ander Campbell. 

The  grand  or  capital  distinction,  then,  between  the  view 
of  faith  as  held  by  Mr.  C,  and  that  held  by  all  evangel- 
ical denominations  of  Christians,  consists  in  this,  that  the 
former  is  a  mere  natural  faith,  or  the  result  of  the  exer- 
cises of  the  mind,  or  of  some,  if  not  all,  the  powers  of  the 
soul  unrenewed  and  unassisted  by  divine  grace;  w^hilst 
the  latter  (the  very  existence  of  which  is  denied  and  ridi- 
culed by  Mr.  C.)  is  held  to  be  the  result  of  the  exercises 
of  the  mind  or  heart,  influenced  by  divine  or  supernatural 
operation.  This  was  contended  for  as  a  cardinal  point, 
in  the  reply  to  Mr.  C,  and  in  opposition  to  his  views, 
which  were  Considered  to  be  as  dangerous  in  their  ten- 
dency, as  they  are  unscriptural  in  their  nature.  And  it 
was  moreover  contended,  that  it  furnished  no  solid  ground 
of  objection  to  this  view  of  faith,  or  any  just  reason  for 
charging  those  who  hold  it  with  mysticism,  because  they 
cannot  explain  Ikav  this  di\dne  or  supernatural  operation 
is  exerted  upon  the  mind,  so  as  to  produce  a  new,  a  ru- 
ling, and  gracious  principle  in  the  soul.  It  is  sufficient 
that  the  testimony  of  God's  word  fully  assures  us  of  the 
fact  of  such  divine  operation,  and  that  we,  by  the  change 
t'aereby  produced  upon  our  character,  may  have  good 
ground  to  conclude  that  we  have  been  its  subjects. 

If,  for  the  reason  alluded  to,  we  are  to  brand  this  view 
of  faith  with  the  epithet  mysterioiis  or  mystical,  and  there- 
fore to  reject  it  as  fallacious,  upon  the  same  ground  we 
m  jst  reject  the  existence  of  a  thousand  productions  of  na- 
ture in  opposition  to  the  testimony  of  all  our  senses.  The 
wise  man  philosophized  more  soundly,  "As  thou  knowest 


CAMPBELLISM. 


47 


not  what  is  the  way  of  the  Spirit,  nor  how  the  bones  do 
grow  in  the  womb  of  her  that  is  with  child;  even  so  thou 
knowest  not  the  works  of  God  who  maketh  all." 

In  confirmation  of  the  doctrine  that  faith  is  "  a  savins 
grace  wrought  in  the  heart  by  supernatural  operations, 
it  was  further  contended  in  reply  to  Mr.  C,  that  we  are 
clearly  ta'ught  in  the  scriptures,  tliat  faith  "  is  the  gift  of 
God;"  and  that  whenever  it  exists  in  the  hearts  of  men, 
(for  "  all  men  have  not  faith,")  it  is  the  product  of  the  pow- 
er of  God.  Thus  the  apostle,  in  the  second  chapter  of  his 
epistle  to  the  Ephesians,  after  having  declared  that  God 
had  quickened  them  as  well  as  himself  together  with 
Christ,  when  they  were  dead  in  sins,  and  had  raised  them 
up  together,  and  made  them  sit  together  in  heavenly  places 
in  Christ  Jesus,  adds:  "  For  by  grace  are  ye  saved  through 
faith,  and  that  not  of  yourselves:  it  is  the  gift  of  Gk)d.'' 
And  in  the  first  chapter  of  the  same  epistle,  the  same 
apostle  informs  the  Ephesians,  that  he  "  ceased  not  to  give 
thanks  for  them,  making  mention  of  them  in  his  prayers; 
that  the  God  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  the  Father  of  glorj", 
might  give  unto  them  the  Spirit  of  Wisdom  and  revelation 
in  the  know^ledge  of  him:  the  eyes  of  their  understanding 
l)eing  enlightened;  that  they  might  know  what  is  the  hope 
of  his  calling,  and  what  the  riches  of  the  glor}'  of  his  inheri- 
tance in  the  saints."  "  And  what  (adds  the  apostle)  is  the 
p^vceedmg  greatness  of  his  pmcer  to  usward  who  belie\-e, 
according  to  the  irorJnvg  of  his  mighty  power,  which  he 
wrought  in  Christ  when  he  raised  him  from  the  dead." 
The  whole  of  this  remarkable  passage  is  altogether  irre- 
concilable with  the  system  of  Mr.  C,  so  that  either  he  or 
the  apostle  must  be  in  error.  It  w^as  therefore  cited  upon 
tlie  occasion  of  the  debate,  as  it  is  at  present,  to  show  that 
faith  is  not  only  the  product  of  divine  power,  but  the  effect 
of  the  exertion  of  the  exceeding  greatness  of  the  mighty 
jx)wer  of  God.  .  It  is  evident  that  the  desire  and  prayer 
of  the  apostle,  was,  that  the  Ephesians  might  perceive 
what  exceeding  greatness  of  divine  power  had  been  ex- 
erted in  his,  as  well  as  their,  conversion  to  the  faith.  And, 
in  the  language  of  a  pious  writer  in  relation  to  this  pas- 


48 


DF.PATE  OH 


sage,  *•  it  is  remarkable  that  the  ai)ostle  seems  here,  stu- 
diously, to  have  exhausted  the  utmost  vigor  of  the  Greek 
language  to  express,  by  a  beautiful  accumulation  of  ener- 
getic words,  the  omnipotence  vi'  God,  as  etiecting  the 
believers  conversion,"  to  the  faith.  It  would  seem  the 
ingenuity  of  Mr.  C.  was  unable  to  devise  any  plausible 
method  to  evade  the  force  of  this  language  of  the  apostle. 
For  certain  it  is,  that  upon  the  occasion  of  the  debate, 
though  it  was  fully  presented  for  his  consideration,  he  did 
not  notice  it,  at  least  whilst  I  was  present,  although  he 
once  responded  before  I  left  the  church,  after  his  atten- 
tion as  well  as  that  of  the  audience  had  been  called  to  tlie 
passage.  And  it  is  moreover  worthy  of  particular  notice, 
that  in  his  narrative  he  prudently  preserves  his  silence  in 
relation  to  it.  May  we  not,  then,  fairly  conclude  that  if 
Mr.  G.,  by  resorting  to  a  criticism  or  even  a  hyjper criticism 
upon  the  original,  could  have  presented  a  plausible  agree- 
ment between  the  views  of  the  apostle  and  his  own,  he 
would  have  favored  first  his  hearers  and  afterwards  his 
readers  with  a  display  of  his  knowledge  of  the  Greek 
language,  as  he  is  ever  ready  to  do. 

Inasmuch,  then,  as  a  mere  historic  faith,  cannot  be  said 
to  be  the  gift  of  God,  or  be  ascribed  to  the  special  exertion 
of  the  mighty  power  of  God,  with  any  more  propriety  than 
it  could  be  said  that  Jesus  was  "  the  author  and  finisher" 
of  that  faith,  which  induced  Mr,  C.  to  exchange  his  native 
isle  for  this  western  continent, — is  it  not  evident  his  faith 
must  stand  "  in  the  wisdom  of  men;"  whilst  that,  of  such 
as  believe,  in  consequence  of  this  powerful  divine  opera- 
tion upon  their  minds,  stands  "  in  the  power  of  God." 

In  order  to  show  not  only  that  faith  i?  the  gift  of  God," 
but  that  the  Holy  Spirit  is  the  Almighty  and  efficient 
agent  in  its  production,  the  fifth  chapter  of  the  epistle  to 
the  Galatians  was  referred  to  in  my  reply  to  Mr.  C., 
where  the  apostle  expressly  enumerates  faith  among 
"  the  fruits  of  the  Spirit." 

I  must,  however,  here  remark,  that  Mr.  C.'s  memory 
seems  to  be  dmibly  treacherous.  He  seems  to  have  for- 
gotten much  that  was  transacted,  whilst  he  recollects 


CAMPBELLISM. 


49 


some  things  that  never  occurred.  This  remark  is  espe- 
cially applicable  to  his  mistaken  or  unfounded  assertion, 
that  I  alluded  to  the  declaration  of  the  apostle,  (1  Cor.  12; 
9.)  "  To  one  is  given  faith  by  the  same  Spirit."  To  have 
alleged  that  the  faith  here  spoken  of,  is  that  whereby  a 
sinner  is  justified,  M^ould  have  evinced  gross  ignorance  of 
tlie  scope  of  the  passage  with  which  it  stands  connected. 
Whether  Mr.  C.  misremembered,  or  has  misrepresented, 
with  a  view  to  make  an  impression  upon  the  public  mind 
that  I  am  grossly  ignorant  of  the  meaning  and  appHcation 
of  the  Scriptures  of  truth,  I  shall  not  undertake  positively 
to  determine.  I  must,  how^ever,  be  permitted  to  observe, 
that  his  numerous  other  misrepresentations,  which  I  shall 
be  compelled  to  notice  in  the  sequel,  seem  to  forbid  the 
charitable  conclusion,  which,  under  diflerent  circumstan- 
ces, I  should  with  pleasure,  be  disposed  to  adopt,  that  the 
misstatement  was  the  effect  of  mistake  and  not  of  design. 

One  of  his  misrepresentations  just  alluded  to,  and  which, 
it  is  conceived,  every  impartial  and  attentive  hearer  of 
the  discussion  on  the  evening  of  the  11th  of  December, 
must  believe  to  be  both  wilful  and  perverse,  and  indica- 
ting on  the  part  of  Mr.  C.  a  great  want,  if  not  a  total 
destitution  of  candor  and  generosity,  I  am  induced  here 
to  notice,  as  it  is  connected  with  another  part  of  the  sub- 
ject of  that  evening's  discussion,  which  I  propose  now,  as 
briefly  as  possible  to  consider.  I  allude  to  the  unfounded 
and  unwarrantable  assertion  of  Mr.  C,  that  I  am  the 

zealous  advocate  of  the  increAihility  of  God's  testimony 
withofit  supernatural  assistance."  This  is  not  merely  a 
reckless  assertion,  without  knowing  w^hether  it  be  in  ac- 
cordance with  the  fact  or  not,  and  such  as  Mr.  C.  has 
long  been  in  the  habit  of  making,  when  he  supposed  that 
he  could  thereby  serve  his  purpose,  but  it  is  an  assertion 
in  direct  opposition  to  truth,  of  which  Mr.  C.  was  fully  ap- 
prised. He  well  know^s,  for  he  cannot  but  remember, 
that  on  the  occasion  alluded  to,  in  reply  to  some  observa- 
tions of  his,  whereby  he  asserted  or  insinuated  that  the 
doctrine  advocated  by  me  would  imply  the  incredibility 
of  God's  testimony  without  supernatural  assistance,  not 


.DEBATE  ON 


only  was  the  alleged  implication  denied;  but  the  fulness 
and  sufficiency  and  consequent  perfect  credibility  of 
God's  testimony  was  earnestly  contended  for,  and  ex- 
pressly asserted  to  be  "  worthy  of  all  acceptation,"'  and 
justly  to  require  the  entire  acquiescence  of  every  heart 

But  in  support  of  the  views  of  faith  which  had  been 
presented,  it  was  observed  that  notwithstanding  the  full- 
ness and  credibility  of  God's  testimony,  there  is  a  necessity 
for  supernatural  operation,  or  the  exertion  of  divine  pow- 
er for  the  production,  in  the  heart  of  man,  of  a  gracious 
principle,  whereby  he  is  both  inclined  and  enabled,  not 
only  to  believe  the  word  and  testimonies  of  the  LORD, 
but  also  to  receive  "  the  love  of  the  truth  that  he  may  be 
saved."  That  this  necessity  is  the  result  of  human  de- 
pravity, that  in  consequence  of  this  depravity,  as  we  are 
distinctly  informed  in  the  word  of  God,  the  understanding 
of  man  is  "darkened,"  his  heart  is  "deceitful  above  all 
things  and  desperately  wicked,"  his  mind  "  carnal"  and  j 
"  enmity  against  God."  Hence  notwithstanding  the  full- 
ness and  perfection  of  the  record  which  God  hath  given 
of  his  Son,  the  necessity  of  that  "  spirit  of  wisdom  and 
revelation  in  the  knowledge  of  him,"  spoken  of  by  the 
apostle  in  the  first  chapter  of  his  epistle  to  the  Ephesians, 
which  revelation  Mr.  C.  treats  with  profane  contempt, 
but  which  the  apostle  prayed  that  God  would  give  to  his 
beloved  brethren  of  Ephesus.  And  that  the  testimony  of 
God  taught  us  to  believe,  as  well  in  the  existence  of,  as  the 
necessity  for,  such  an  internal  revelation  of  the  revealed 
and  written  truth  of  God  to  the  soul,  by  the  power  and 
grace  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  in  order  "  to  remove  (if  I  may 
use  the  language  of  Mr.  C.)  the  film  from  the  mental  eye,^ 
or  according  to  the  language  of  the  apostle  already  quoted, 
to  enlighten  the  eyes  of  the  understanding.  I  KOt  only 
referred  Mr.  C.  to  this  second  chapter  of  Ephesians,  but 
to  several  other  passages  of  that  sacred  testimony.  In 
addition  to  what  is  contained  in  this  chapter,  some  of  the  | 
passages  referred  to,  as  warranting  us  to  pray  for  and  tp  I 
expect  such  an  internal  revelation  of  Christ  and  his  gos-.  | 
pel  to  the  soul,  as  will  make  it  the  power  of  God  unto 


I 


CAMPBELLISM. 


51 


salvation,  as  it  is  to  all  who  with  the  heart  believe  unto 
righteousness,  were  the  following.  First,  the  reply  of 
our  Lord  to  Peter's  confession  of  his  faith,  (Matth.  16:17.) 
**  Blessed  art  thou,  Simon  Barjona,  for  flesh  and  blood 
hath  not  revealed  it  unto  thee,  but  my  Father  which  is  in 
heaven."  ' 

The  revelation  here  spoken  of  by  our  Lord,  is  certainly 
distinct  from,  though  of  the  same  truth  which  had  been 
revealed  in,  and  taught  by  the  law  and  the  prophets;  and 
wliich  had  been  more  fully  explained  and  confirmed  by 
Christ  himself  in  the  instruction  which  he  had,  from  time 
to  time,  given  to  his  disciples;  and  yet  it  is  evident  that 
Peter,  as  well  as  the  rest  of  the  disciples,  but  very  im- 
perfectly understood  the  character  and  object  of  our 
Lord's  mission  into  the  world,  even  after  they  had  left 
all  and  followed  him.  Hence  it  is  evident,  and  especially 
from  this  declaration  of  Christ  to  Peter,  that  just  in  so  far 
as  he  and  his  fellow  disciples,  "  spiritually  discerned"  and 
rightly  understood  these  things,  it  was  in  consequence  of 
tlieir  having  been  revealed  to  them  by  their  Father  in 
heaven.  This  will  also  still  more  clearly  appear  by  a 
reference  to  the  language  of  Christ:  (Matth.  11:25.)  "I 
tliank  thee,  O  Father,  &c.  because  thou  hast  hid  these 
things  from  the  wise  and  prudent,  and  hast  revealed  them 
unto  babes."  By  "  the  wise  and  prudent"  here  mentioned, 
we  are  evidently  to  understand  those  who  are  such  in 
tlieir  own  sight,  and  against  whom  God  by  his  prophet 
Isaiah  denounces  a  wo.  From  such  the  "  things  which 
accompany  salvation"  are  hid,  not  because  none  of  this 
character  are  favored  with  the  word  or  revealed  will  of 
God,  but  because  they  "  having  their  understandine 
darkened,"  are  "  alienated  from  the  life  of  God  through 
the  ignorance  that  is  in  them,  because  of  the  blindness  of 
their  heart,"  (Eph.  4:18.)  And  whilst  this  disposition  to 
cherish  an  exalted  opinion  of  our  wisdom  and  prudence 
continues,  it  will  prevent  that  internal  and  effectual  rewe- 
lation  of  which  our  Lord  speaks  as  being  made  to  babes, 
to  such  as  are  unlearned,  or  weak  in  intellect,  as  well  as 
foung  in  years,  but  who  are  humble,  and  docile,  and 


52 


DEBATE  ON 


meek,  such  as  God  has  promised  to  "guide  in  judgment," 
and  to  "  teach  his  way." 

Another  passage  referred  to  for  the  purpose  above 
mentioned,  was  that  (Gal.  1:15,16,)  in  which  the  apostle 
declares  that  "  it  pleased  God,  who  separated  him  (or  had 
chosen  him  to  be  an  apostle,  and  had,  by  his  [»urpose, 
set  him  apart  for  that  service)  from  his  mother's  womb, 
and  called  him  by  his  grace,  to  reveal  his  Son  in  hir/u, 
that  he  might  preach  him  among  the  heathen,"  &c.  The 
revelation  here  mentioned  was  evidently  internal,  ("  in 
Tae,"  says  the  apostle.)  A  revelation  of  the  glory  of  the 
person  and  salvation  of  the  Lord  Jesus  to  his  understand- 
ing and  heart.  Such  a  revelation  as  eveiy  one  must 
experience  that  would,  in  imitation  of  this  apostle,  preach 
"  the  unsearchable  riches  of  Christ."  And  in  substance 
the  same  revelation  that  is  ex]:>erienced  by  all  true  chris- 
tians, not  excepting  such  as  are  "  babes  in  Christ."  To 
these  passages  of  Goal's  testimony  Mr.  C.  was  wise  and 
prudent  enough  upon  tlie  occasion  of  this  discussion  (at 
least  whilst  I  was  present,)  to  make  no  reply;  and  of  them 
he  has  made  no  mention  in  his  narrative. 

To  shew  further  the  necessity  of  this  revelation,  I  re- 
ferred not  only  to  the  prayer  of  the  Psalmist  that  God  would 
open  his  eyes,  (certainly  not  his  natural  eyes,  but  the  eyes 
of  his  understanding,)  that  he  might  read  "  wondrous 
things  out  of  his  law,"  but  to  the  declaration  of  the  apos- 
tle: (1  Cor.  2:14,)  "That  the  natural  man  receiveth  not  the 
things  of  the  Spirit  of  God:  for  they  are  foolishness  unto 
him;  neither  can  he  know  tliem,  because  they  are  spiritu- 
ally discerned." 

It  is  here  proper  to  remark,  that  the  assertion  or  alle- 
gation of  Mr.  C,  that  the  evangelical  preachers  of  the 
gospel,  of  the  different  denominations  or  reformed  church- 
es, represented  the  true  meaning  of  the  scriptures  as  being 
hid  from  the  view  by  a  veil,  which  they  had  the  power 
to  remove,  and  thus  to  reveal  them  to  the  understanding 
of  their  hearers,  was  declared  to  be  gratuitous,  and  with- 
out the  shadow  of  truth  for  its  foundation.  On  the 
contrary,  it  was  asserted  they  made  no  such  representa- 


CAMPBELLISM. 


53 


lion,  they  claimed  no  such  power.  And  Mr.  C.  is 
fearlessly  challenged,  not  only  for  the  truth's  sake,  but 
for  his  own  sake,  and  as  he  would  regard  his  reputation 
for  veracity,  to  produce  the  proof  even  of  one  instance, 
of  an  evangehcal  preacher  of  any  denomination,  in  good 
standing,  having  made  such  a  representation  or  claimed 
such  a  power.  It  is  true  that  they  believe  there  are  some 
things  in  the  word  of  God  "  hard  to  be  understood,"  and 
such  of  them  as  are  sincerely  engaged  in  the  "good 
work,"  to  which  they  believe  they  have  been  called,  study 
to  approve  themselves  unto  God,  that  they  may  be  work- 
men who  need  not  to  be  ashamed,  "  rightly  dividing  the 
word  of  truth."  And  for  this  purpose,  they  meditate  on 
the  things  contained  in  the  sacred  volume,  and  so  far  as 
it  is  in  their  power,  they  give  themselves  wholly  to  them, 
that  their  "  profiting  may  appear  to  all  men,"  and  that 
they  may  be  qualified  to  "  expound  the  way  of  God  more 
perfectly."  After  all  that  Mr.  C.  has  alleged  upon  this  . 
subject,  there  are  none  of  the  preachers  of  the  gospel,  gf  \ 
any  evangelical  denomination,  that  will  compare  with 
himself  as  a  teacher  of  mysticism,  or  for  boldness  in  ex- 
pounding, not  to  say  wresting,  the  scriptures.  There  is 
indeed  one  thing,  in  which  it  is  hoped  and  believed,  the 
most  of  these  preachers  of  the  gospel  differ  widely  from 
Mr.  C.  in  relation  to  this  subject.  Whilst  he,  it  is  believed, 
consistently  enough  with  the  doctrines  which  he  holds, 
expects  not,  and  asks  not  for  the  assistance,  tlie  gui- 
dance, or  the  enlightening  influence  of  the  Holy  Spirit, 
they  profess  to  believe,  and  it  is  hoped  the  most  do  be- 
lieve, that  "  as  many  as  are  led  by  the  Spirit  of  God, 
they  are  the  Sons  of  God."  And  such  as  do  thus  believe, 
do  also  habitually  feel  their  dependence  upon  this  promised 
Comforter;  and  their  continual  need  of  his  enlightening 
and  quickening  and  sanctifying  grace;  and  encouraged 
by  the  assurance  of  our  Lord,  that  his  and  our  heavenly 
Father  will  give  the  Holy  Spirit  to  those  who  ask  him, 
they  are  led  daily  to  pray  for  a  supply  of  the  Spirit,  that 
they  may  not  only  themselves  be  saved  through  "  the 
sanctification  of  the  Spirit  and  belief  of  the  truth,"  butth^t 


54 


DEBATE  ON 


they  may  be  so  guided  "  into  all  truth,"  and  so  con- 
tinue therein,  whilst  they  preach  the  word,"  that  they 
may  also  be  the  instruments  of  saving  "  those  w^ho  hear 
them." 

Nor  do  these  preachers  of  the  gospel  hold  or  teach,  as^ 
Mr.  C.  would  represent,  that  the  "  natural  man,"  spoken 
of  in  the  first  epistle  to  the  Corintiiians,  (by  which  expres- 
sion they  understand  every  man  that  has  not  been  "  re- 
newed in  the  spirit  of  his  mind  " — every  one  born  of  a 
woman  who  has  not  been  "  born  of  God  " — every  person 
"  born  of  the  flesh  "  but  not  of  the  Spirit,)  cannot,  in  any 
sense,  understand  the  truths  and  doctrines  of  the  bible.. 
On  the  contraiy,  they  believe  a  "  natural  man,"  without 
divine  aid  or  the  enlightening  influences  of  the  Holy  Spir- 
it>  may  attain  to  a  very  extensive,  as  well  as  accurate^ 
intellectual  knowledge  of  "  the  things  of  the'spirit  of  God,"" 
as  revealed  in  his  word.  Still  they  l>elieve  and  contend 
"the  natural  man"  does  not  receive,  neither  "can  he 
know  these  "  things  of  the  spirit  of  God,"  in  the  proper 
sense  of  the  text.  The  subject  will  admit  of  an  apt  illus- 
tration from  wdiat  is  said  concerning  our  Lord  in  the 
first  chapter  of  the  gospel  by  John.  "  He  w^as  in  the 
world,  and  the  world  w^as  made  by  him,  and  the  w^orld 
knew  him  not.  He  came  unto  his  own,  and  his  own  re- 
ceived him  not."  There  was,  nevertheless,  a  remnant 
of  that  generation  of  his  own  people,  the  Jews,  as  w^ell  as 
multitudes  of  Gentiles,  after  his  crucifixion,  resurrection 
and  ascension  to  the  right  hand  of  God,  w^ho  did  receive- 
him.  Therefore  the  writer  of  the  gospel  adds:  "But  as 
many  as  did  receive  him,  to  them  gave  he  power  [or  the 
privilege]  to  become  the  sons  of  God;  eveyi  to  them  that 
l3elieve  on  his  name."  He  next  proceeds  to  state  the  rea- 
son why  any  thus  received  or  believed  on  the  Saviour 
"  which  w^ere  born  not  of  blood,  &c.  &c.  but  of  God."" 
And  in  the  conclusion  of  the  paragraph,  after  a  distinct 
recognition  of  "  the  mystery  of  godliness,"  "the  word 
was  made  flesh  and  dwelt  among  us,"  he  states  one  of 
the  most  distinguished  privileges  of  such  as  are  truly  the 
sons  of  God  bv  faith  in  Christ  Jesus:  "  and  we  beheld  his 


CAMPBELLISM. 


55 


'glory,  the  glory  as  of  the  only  begotten  of  the  Father^ 
lull  of  grace  and  trutli." 

Now,  although  many  of  his  own  people  knew  Jesu?, 
not  only  as  the  son  of  Mary,  and  the  rcpvtcd  son  of  the 
cai-penter,  but  ^ilso  as  a  person  who  did  many  wonderful 
works; ,  and  although  some  of  them  had  a  conviction, 
tliat  he  was  tl^  promised  and  long  expected  Messiah,  stiil 
they  did  not  know  him,  as  did  they  who  received  him, 
and  with  all  their  heart  believed  on  him.  These  last  had 
the  eyes  of  their  understanding  so  enlightened,  that  they 
beheld  "  his  glory,"  (whi^h  was  veiled  under  his  external 
poverty  and  deep  humilty  from  the  view  of  the  former,) 
as  the  glory  of  the  only  begotten  of  the  Father."  God 
who  commanded  the  light  to  shine  out  of  darkness,"  had 
"  shined"  into  the  hearts  of  the  latter,  to  give  them  "  the 
light  of  the  knowledge  of  the  glory  of  God  in  the  face  of 
Jesus  Christ;"  whilst  the  former  "  were  blinded  by  the 
'God  of  this  world,  lest  the  light  of  the  glorious  gospel  oT 
Christ,  who  is  the  image  of  God,  should  shine  unto  ihern.'" 
So  also,  although  "the  natural  man"  may  attain  to  some 
intellectual  knowledge  of  the  things  of  the  spirit  of  God, 
or  the  truths  contained  in  his  word,  still  he  cannot  knew 
them,  as  does  the  spiritual  man,  or  he  that  is  born  of  the 
Spirit.  Of  spirtual  discernment  he  is  totally  destitute,  be- 
cause "  that  which  is  born  of  the  fiesh  is  flesh,"  whihvt 
that,  and  only  "  that,  which  is  born  of  the  Spirit  is  spirit. ' 
Wherefore  it  is  said,  "  the  natural  jnan  receiveth  not  the 
things  of  the  spirit  of  God"  Ahhongh  he  may  under^ 
stand  them  in  the  same  manner  that  he  does  natural 
things,  and  may  historically  or  speculatively  believe 
them,  he  does  not  receive  or  embrace  these  things,  as 
better  than  "  thousands  of  gold  and  of  silver."  In  a  word, 
whatever  may  be  the  extent  of  his  knowledge  of  the 
truth,  he  does  not  therewith  "  receive  the  love  "  of  it,  that 
he  "  may  be  saved."  The  word  in  the  original,  or  Greek 
language,  rendered  '*  receiveth,'''  is  a  part  of  the  same 
verb  that  i4  similarly  translated  in  Acts  8:14,11:1,  and 
17:11.  as  also  in  1  Thess.  1:6,  and  in  other  passages  of 
die  New  Testament.    Now  if  any  inquirer  for  the  truth 


S6 


DEBATE  Ojr 


as  it  is  in  Jesus,  will  examine  these  passages  with  the 
same  spirit  that  actuated  the  Bereans,  "  wlio  searched  the 
scriptures  daily,"  he  will  soon  discover,  that  the  reception 
of  "  the  gospel,"  or  "  the  word  of  God"  therein  described, 
is  very  different,  indeed,  from  t/iat  produced  by  any  mere 
historical^  or  Campbelliteish,  belief  of  the  truth.  It  was  a 
reception  of  the  gospel  that  diffused  joy  throughout  the 
city  of  Samaria — a  reception  of  "  the  word  of  God,"  as 
preached  by  Peter,  at  the  house  of  the  centurion,  that  was 
the  effect  of  the  baptism  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  accompa- 
nied by  the  grant  from  God  of  "  rej>entance  unto  life." 
A  reception  "  with  all  readiness  of  mind,"  and  with  joy 
"  of  the  Holy  Ghost."  What,  I  now  ask,  must  be  the 
judgment  of  every  candid  mind,  concerning  Mr.  C.'s  as- 
sertion, that  I  am  a  "  zealous  advocate  of  the  incredibility 
of  God's  testimony  without  supernatural  assistance?"  If 
it  was  designed  by  him  as  a  direct  assertion,  as  a  matter 
of  fact,  that  I  advocated  such  doctrine,  it  is  unqualifiedly 
imtrue.  And  if  he  intended  it  as  an  inference  from  the 
fact,  that  I  did  advocate  the  doctrine  of  the  necessity  of 
divine  influence  upon  the  heart  of  man,  for  the  production 
of  a  lively  as  well  as  lici/to-  faith,  he  ou^ht,  in  all  honesty, 
to  have  let  his  readers  so  understand  him.  But  this  would 
not  have  answered  his  purpose,  because  he  might  with  as 
good  reason  infer,  that  I  am  an  advocate  of  the  insuffi- 
ciency of  the  light  of  the  sun,  when  I  assert,  that  the  man 
born  blind  could  not  see  any  of  the  objects  around  him, 
or  any  of  the  glories  of  creation,  until  Christ  opened  his 
eyes. 

But  it  was,  in  reply  to  Mr.  C,  still  further  urged,  in  sup- 
port of  the  doctrine  of  divine  influence  upon  the  human 
mind,  that  in  consequence  of  the  depravity  of  man,  and 
especially  of  that  carnal  mind  which  "is  enmity  against 
God  and  not  subject  to  his  law,"  there  is  a  prejudice 
against,  as  well  as  an  opposition  to,  the  truth  and  testimony 
of  God,  which  must  be  removed  before  this  truth  and  this 
testimony  can  be  cordially  received  as  worthy  of  all  ac- 
ceptation; and  before  the  sinner  can  be  persuaded  to  set 
his  hope  in  God,  or  put  his  whole  trust  in  the  Lord  Jesus 


CAMPBELLISM. 


57 


Christ.  This  was  illustrated  by  cases  which  frequent iy 
occur  in  such  transactions,  and  especially  judicial  pro- 
ceedings, among  men,  where  testimony  is  indispensable, 
and  where  it  is  all-important  that  it  should  be  both  given 
and  received  by  men  whose  minds  are  free  from  preju- 
dice or  h'lSLS  of  every  kind.  Hence,  it  was  observed,  that 
a  man  was  justly  considered  as  ahogether  disqualif. ed  to 
act  as  a  juror  in  any  particular  cause,  if  it  was  ascertain- 
ed that  he  entertained  a  strong  prejudice,  and  especially 
a  high  degree  of  enmity,  against  one  of  the  panics.  A 
further  illustration  may  be  drawn  from  Mr.  C.'s  account 
of  his  belief  of  the  history  of  these  United  States,  and  the 
etfect  thereby  produced  upon  him.  If  his  mind  had  been 
as  much  prepossessed  against,  as  it  is  hkely  it  \^'as  in  fa- 
vor of,  this  land  of  freedom, — if  high  tory  principles  had, 
'rom  his  childhood,  been  instilled  into  his  mind,  in^ftead  of 
Jiose  principles  of  civil  lil:)erty,  to  wliich  the  religlmts  sect 
to  which  his  father  once  belonged,  have  ever,  and  at  all 
hazards,  adhered;  had  he  been  early  taught  to  believe, 
that  under  these  repubhcan  institutions,  instead  of  equal 
rights  and  protection  of  life,  reputation,  and  property, 
nothing  could  be  expected,  but  anarchy  and  violence, 
popular  commotion  and  wild  misrule,  would  be  have 
yielded  to  the  history,  or  the  accounts  of  this  country 
which  he  read,  that  credence  which  they  justly  deserved? 
Would  he,  wUlingly,  have  emigrated?  Certainly  not,  un- 
less liis  prejudices  could  have  been  removed, — even  al- 
though he  might  have  believed  many  of  Xhe facts  contained 
in  the  history  which  he  read  in  his  youth,  especially  such 
as  related  to  the  fertility  of  the  soil,  the  abundance  and 
variety  of  its  productions,  &c.,  &c.  Thus,  also,  it  is  evi- 
dent, that  until  the  enmity  of  the  carnal  mind  against  God, 
and  the  consequent  carnal  prejudice  against  his  truth, 
his  gospel,  his  Christ,  be  removed,  the  sinner,  although  he 
may  historically  believe  the  scriptures,  will  not  so  receive 
the  truth  and  testimony  of  God,  as  to  induce  him  to  re- 
nounce all  trust  in  himself,  or  his  supposed  righteousness, 
and  trust  in  the  Lord  alone  as  "  Jehovah  our  Righteous- 
ness," and  rest  his  hope  of  eternal  life  sunply  upon  his 
promises. 

*6 


58 


DEBATE  ON 


If,  then,  the  scriptures  be  at  all  intelligible,  and  Avere, 
indeed,    written  for  our  learning,"  that  we  through  tiie 
patience  and  comfort  which  they  suggest  and  teacii,  might 
have  hope,  we  seem  to  be  evidently  taught  by  the  whole 
tenor  of  the  sacred  volume,  that  the  destruction  of  this 
enmity  against  God,  and  the  removal  of  this  carnal  preju- 
dice, cannot  be  effected  by  any  act  which  man  can  devise, 
any  persuasion  w^hich  he  can  use,  or  any  "  might  or  pow- 
er'' which  he  can  exert,  but  by  the  "  Spirit  of  the  Lord 
of  Hosts."    Many  passages  of  God's  w^ord  might,  with 
great  propriety,  be  referred  to  in  support  of  this  position: 
suffice  it,  however,  just  to  observe,  that  God  is  declared 
to  be  "  in  Christ  reconciling  the  w^orld  unto  himself;"  and 
having  made  peace  (or  having  provided  a  peace-offering) 
through  the  blood  of  his  cross,  he  actually  reconciles  such 
as  before  were  enemies  in  their  minds  by  wicked  works.* 
The  manner  in  which,  as  well  as  the  efficient  agent  by 
which  this  is  effected,  w^e  are  informed  by  Christ  himself. 
"  When  he  (the  Comforter  or  Spirit  of  truth)  is  come,  he 
will  reprove  the  world  of  sin,  and  of  righteousness,  and  of 
judgment."    And  w^e  are  said  to  be  chosen  unto  salvation 
through  "  the  sanctification  of  the  Spirit  and  belief  of  the 
truth,"  and  to  be  "  saved  not  by  works  of  righteousness 
which  we  have  done,  but  by  thew^ashing  of  regeneration 
and  the  renewing  of  the  Holy  Ghost:"  which  is  declared 
to  be  shed  on  such  as  are  thus  renewed,  "  abundantly, 
through  Jesus  Christ  our  Saviour."  (Tit.3:5,6.)    Thus  the 
same  "apostle,  in  his  first  epistle  to  the  Corinthians,  6:11, 
after  having  declared  what  had  been  the  character  of 
some  of  them,  whilst  in  their  unconverted  state,  adds: 
"But  ye  are  w^ashed,  but  ye  are  sanctified,  but  ye  are 
justified  in  the  name  of  the  Lord  Jesus,  and  by  the  Spirit 
of  our  God." 

Li  responding  to  my  reply, — after  Mr.  C.  had  expressed 
his  gratification  that  I  had  offered  objections  to  his  views 
of  the  nature  of  faith,  and  especially  as  it  furnished  him 
with  an  opportunity  "of  saying  something  more,"  upon  that 

«  Col  1:20—22. 


CAMPBELLISM. 


59 


subject, — he  spoke,  among  other  thmgs,  of  the  doctrine 
of  divine  influence,  or  the  alleged  necessity  of  the  inllu- 
ence  and  grace  of  the  Divine  Spirit  to  work  in,  or  operaie 
upon,  the  hearts  of  men  for  the  production  of  true  faith — 
even  that  which  is  not  of  ourselves,  but  is  the  gilt  of  God, 
as  implying  "  a  physical  operation"  upon  the  soul,  which 
he  not  only  denied,  but  treated  as  deserving  of  contempt. 
What  was  the  exact  meaning  which  he  wished  to  attach 
to  the  word  "  fhysical^^  he  did  not  inform  us.  For  my 
own  part,  I  know  of  no  meaning  of  this  term  in  which  it 
could,  with  propriety,  be  used  literally,  in  relation  to  tliis 
subject.  I  therefore,  as  Mr.  C.  states  in  his  narrative, 
"  also  protested  against  physical  influences,"  or  opera- 
tions upon  the  mind  in  the  production  of  that  faith  where- 
by a  sinner  is  justified  and  finds  peace  with  God.  And  I 
further  stated,  that  I  considered  the  operation  of  the  Spi- 
rit, whereby  that  change  was  produced  that  caused  old 
things  to  pass  away  and  all  things  to  become  new,  to  be, 
that  the  subject  of  it  is  not  only  declared  to  be  the  w^ork- 
manship  of  God,  (Eph.  2:10,)  "  created  in  Christ  Jesus 
unto  good  works,"  but  "  a  new  creature,"  (2  Cor.  5:17,) 
to  be  in  its  character  and  eflfects  wholly  and  purely  spir- 
itual. That  it  could  not,  with  any  propriety,  be  com- 
pared (unless  it  were  figuratively,  and  simply  by  way  of 
illustration)  to  any  physical,  or  natural  operation  perform- 
ed upon  any  member,  or  organ  of  the  body,  whether  it 
were  intended  to  restore  sight  to  the  blind,  hearing  to  the 
deaf,  or  muscular  power  to  the  paralytic.  But  that  it  is 
to  be  \dewed  as  a  mighty  and  glorious,  as  well  as  gra- 
cious operation  of  Spirit  upon  spirit — of  "  the  Eternal 
Spirit"  upon  the  spirit  or  soul  of  man,  whose  mind  is 
carnal,  that  he  may  thereby  be  renewed  af  er  the  image 
of  Him  that  created  him,  or  restored  to  theimasre  as  well 
favor  of  God,  which  were  lost  by  the  fall.  The  eflfect  of 
this  operation  is,  that  the  subject  of  it  is  delivered  from 
the  power  of  this  carnal  mind,  which  is  death,  and  be- 
comes spiritually  minded,  which  is  Hfe  and  peace.  When, 
forthwith,  his  soul,  like  that  of  Mary,  "  doth  magnify  the 
Lord,"  and  his  spirit  rejoices  in  God  his  Saviour.  And 


60 


DEBATE  ON 


the  Lord  Jesus,  in  whom  he  now  belie  ves,  is  made  of  God 
unto  him  wisdom,  and  righteousness,  and  sanctification, 
and  redemption.  (1  Cor.  1:30.) 

If  Mr.  C,  in  his  response  to  my  reply,  even  referred 
to  any  passage  of  scripture  in  support  of  his  doctrine,  it 
is  not  recollected,  and  the  impression  on  my  mind  is,  that 
he  did  not.  It  is  true,  he  did  endeavor,  so  to  explain  or 
wrest  some  of  the  passages  of  God's  word,  referred  to  by 
me,  5is  to  do  away  their  force  or  application  to  the  sub- 
ject under  discussion.  Whilst,  as  it  has  already  been 
observed,  he  w^as  prudent  enough  to  make  no  remarks 
upon  the  prayer  of  Paul  for  his  beloved  Ephesians,  he 
asserted,  as  he  has  done  in  his  narrative,  that  "  faith  is 
not  said  by  the  apostle  (in  the  second  chapter  of  the  same 
epistle)  to  be  the  gift  of  God,"  as  the  translators  of  the 
Bible  understood,  and  as  all  evangelical  Christians  have 
ever  understood  him  to  say.  And  what  is  the  weighty 
reason  assigned  by  the  learned  Bishop  of  Bethany  for  his 
assertion?  It  is  that  pistis  (in  Eph.  2:8,)  or  rather  piste- 
os,  (being  in  the  genitive  case,)  the  original  of  the  word 
rendered  "  faith,"  is  feminine  gender;  whereas  the  word 
TouTo,  translated  "  that,^^  is  neuter  gender,  and  therefore 
cannot  refer  io  faith  as  the  gift  of  God  here  spoken  of. 

According  to  this  view  of  the  meaning  of  the  text,  Mr. 
C,  in  his  version  of  the  New  Testament,  has  either  made 
or  adopted  a  translation  different  from  that  to  which  that 
portion  of  the  Christian  world  who  speak  the  English  lan- 
guage, have  long  been  accustomed  to  appeal  as  the  stan- 
dard of  revealed  truth.  In  the  version  of  Mr.  C.  it  reads 
thus:  "  For  by  favor  you  are  saved  through  faith;  and 
this  affair  is  not  of  yourselves — it  is  the  gift  of  God."  I 
would  here  ask,  what  affair  is  alluded  to?  Certain  it  is, 
the  apostle  speaks  of  no  affair;  and  it  is  equally  certain, 
there  is  no  word  or  expression  in  the  original,  to  excuse, 
much  less  to  justify,  the  insertion  of  the  word  affair  in  the 
translation.  Nor  is  it  inserted  avowedly  to  supply  what 
the  translator  believed  to  be  wanting  to  express  the  mean- 
ing of  the  original  text:  if  such  had  been  the  case,  notice 
of  it  ought  by  some  means  to  have  been  given  to  the 


CAMPBELLISM. 


61 


reader,  as  it  is  invariably  done  in  our  standard  version,  by- 
printing  the  word  or  words  supplied  by  the  translators 
in  italics.  But  in  this,  as  in  many  other  similar  cases  in 
the  version  put  forth  by  Mr.  C.,  the  common  or  unlearn- 
ed reader,  may  read  Mr.  C.'s  gloss,  and  suppose  it  to  be 
the  very  word  of  God.  This,  however,  is  but  one,  and 
by  no  means  the  most  atrocious  of  the  many  corruptions 
of  the  word  of  God  that  are  to  be  found  in  Mr.  C.'s  ver- 
sion of  the  New  Testament,  some  of  which  will  be  no- 
ticed in  the  sequel  of  this  narrative. 

But  it  is  said  by  Mr.  C.  that  touto,  in  the  text  under 
consideration,  cannot  refer  to  pisteos  as  its  antecedent, 
and  that  faith  is  not  said  by  the  apostle  to  be  the  gift  of 
God.  I  can  hardly  persuade  myself  that  Mr.  C.  is  so  ig- 
norant of  the  idiom  of  the  Greek  language,  or  of  the 
various  passages  in  whicii  this  word  touto  evidently  re- 
fers to  nouns,  either  in  the  masculine  or  feminine  gender, 
or  in  which  pronouns  in  the  masculine  gender  refer  to 
nouns  in  the  neuter  gender,  as  to  admit  the  conclusion, 
that  he  sincerely  believes  the  apostle  did  not  mean  to 
declare  that  "  faith  is  the  gift  of  God." 

Before  I  proceed  to  compare  this,  with  some  other  pas- 
sages in  the  New  Testament,  in  which  the  word  touto  is 
similarly  used,  it  may  perhaps  be  gratifying  to  many  to 
know  what  was  the  judgment  of  Dr.  Philip  Doddridge — 
one  of  the  three  translators,  whose  names  Mr.  C.  has 
given  to  the  world,  as  the  authors  of  the  version  of  the 
New  Testament  that  he  has  published — concerning  the 
true  meaning  of  this  passage.  "  Some  (says  Dr.  Dod- 
dridge) explain  the  following  clause,  and  that  vot  of  ycmr^ 
selves,  as  if  it  were  only  a  repetition  of  what  was  said 
Ixifore,  that  the  const ituti mi  that  made  faith  the  way  to 
salvation,  was.  not  of  their  own  appointment,  but  God's^ 
But  this  is  making  the  apostle  guilty  of  a  flat  tautology, 
for  which  there  is  no  occasion.  Taking  the  clause  as  we 
explain  it,  that  is,  as  asserting  the  agencij  of  Divine  ^^raofl 
in  the  production  oi faith,  as  well  as  in  the  constitution  of 
the  method  of  salvation  hy  it,  the  thought  rises  with  great 
spirit    As  for  the  apostle's  using  the  word  touto  in  the 


62 


DEBATE  OK 


neuter  gender,  to  signify /a/M,  the  lliivg  he  had  just  before 
been  speaking  of,  there  are  so  many  similar  instances  to 
be  found  in  scripture,  that  one  would  wonder  how  it  were 
possible  for  any  judicious  critics  to  have  laid  so  much 
stress  on  this  as  they  do,  in  rejecting  what  seems  beyond 
all  comparison  the  weightiest  and  most  natural  interpre- 
tation." Thus  we  see  Mr.  C,  and  his  translator,  Dr.  D., 
are  at  issue  concerning  this  touto,  which  the  former 
would  fain  use  as  a  lever  to  overturn,  that  he  may  des- 
troy, one  of  the  most  important  doctrines  of  the  gospel. 
With  a  view  to  show  not  only  that  Dr.  D.  is  on  the  side 
of  truth,  in  this  issue  which  Mr.  C.  has  joined  concernhig 
the  meaning  of  the  apostle,  but  also  the  fallacy  of  the  con- 
clusion that  TOUTO  cannot  refer  to  faith,  I  shall  now  refer 
to  some  other  texts  of  scripture.  The  sa7ne  a])os(le,  in  his 
epistle  to  the  Philip]jians,  (Phil.l:28,)  speaks  thus:  "  And 
in  nothing  terrified  by  your  adversaries:  which  to  them 
is  an  evident  token  of  perdition,  but  to  you  of  salvation^ 
and  that  of  God."  Here  there  can  be  no  doubt  about  tlie 
antecedent  oi  that.  It  can  refer  to  nothing  that  precedes 
in  the  text,  except  it  be  salvation.  And  yet  the  original 
of  the  word  rendered  that,  is  this  very  touto,  in  the  neu- 
ter gender,  referring  to  salvation,  the  original  of  which, 
like  that  o(  faith,  in  Eph.2:8,  is  in  the  feminine  gender. 
In  the  sixth  chapter  of  this  same  epistle  to  the  Ephesian.s 
verse  18,  the  apostle  uses  the  following  language:  Pray- 
ing always  with  all  prayer  and  supplication  in  the  Spirit, 
and  watching  thereunto  with  all  perseverance,"  &c.  Here 
tlie  word  thereunto,  evidently  refers  to  "  -prayer  and  sup- 
plication,''  and  indeed  can  refer  to  nothing  else.  Never- 
theless, the  original  of  the  words  rendered  thrreunto,  are 
auto  touto,  both  in  the  neuter  gender,  whilst  the  words 
which  signify  prayer  and  supplication,''  are  both  femi- 
nine. So  also  in  his  ejnstle  to  the  Galatians,  (Gal.  3:17,) 
the  same  apostle  writes  thus:  "  And  this  (touto)  I  say, 
that  the  covenant,  that  was  confirmed  before  of  God  in 
Christ,"  &c.  Here  we  have  another  instance  of  touto 
referring  to  a  word,  (viz.  "  the  covenant,")  which,  in  the 
original,  is  in  the  feminine  gender.    Lest  it  should  bo 


CAMPBELLI5M. 


63 


thought  that  proofs  are  inuhi}jh'ed  unnecessarily,  I  shall 
only  refer  to  one  other  text  in  relation  to  tliis  touto,  upon 
the  gender  of  which  Mr.  C.  attempts  to  erect  his  new 
theory  of  faith,  or  rather  his  battery  to  destroy,  if  possi* 
ble,  the  faith  once  deHvered  to  the  saints.  The  passage 
to  which  I  now  allude,  would,  of  itself,  werethereno  other 
in  which  the  word  touto  is  used  in  like  manner,  Ije  am- 
ply sufficient  to  refute  the  argument  of  Mr.  C.  It  is  re- 
corded in  the  first  epistle  to  the  (-orinthians,  chapter  6. 
After  assuring  them  that  "neither  fornicators,  nor  idola- 
terSy  nor  adulterers,  &c.,  (fee,  shall  inherit  the  kingdom 
of  Gfxl:  And  such  (adds  the  apostle,  ver.  11)  were  sr)m0 
of  you,"  &c.  Here  also  the  w  ord  such  (in  the  original 
TAUTA,  the  plural  number  of  touto,  and  in  the  neuter  gen- 
der) refers  to  the  wicked  characters  before  described^ 
which,  in  the  Greek,  are  in  tlie  masculine  gender. 

I  shall  conclude  this  examination  of  the  grammatical  con- 
struction  of  the  original  language  of  the  New  Testament, 
by  referring  to  one  text,  in  which  a  pronoun  in  the  mascu- 
hne  gender  evidently  refers  to  a  neuter  noun  as  its  ante- 
cedent. The  same  apostle  (Gal.  4:19,)  says:  "  My  littJe 
children,  of  whom  I  travail  in  bii*th  again,  until  Christ  be 
formed  in  you.''  Here  the  word  vhcm  (in  the  original 
ous,  a  masculine  pronoim.)  refers  to  little  children,  which 
in  the  original  is  expressed  by  one  word  (teknia)  which 
is  in  the  neuter  gender.  I  shall  only  add,  that  we  have 
the  authority  of  the  same  Dr.  D.  for  asserting,  that  this 
construction  is  not  confined  to  the  original  Greek  of  the 
New  Testament,  but  that  the  hke  construction  is  found 
in  other  Greek  authors  of  undoubted  credit. 

But  if  the  argument  of  Mr.  C.  were  as  sound  and  con- 
clusive, as  it  is  fallacious  and  worthless,  it  would  avail 
him  but  little,  unless  he  could  also  have  the  ingenuity  to 
explain  away  the  meaning,  not  •nly  of  those  passages  of 
scripture -which  teach  us  to  believe'  that  faith  "  is  the  gift 
of  God,"  but  those  alsp  which  represent  it  to  be  the  pro- 
duct of  his  power  and  grace.  I  have  already  shown  that 
Mr.  C.  has  made  no  attempt  to  do  away  the  force  of  those 
passages  in  the  New  Testament  which  represent  faith  as 


DEBATE  ON 


the  effect  of  the  power,  and  even  the  exceeding  greatness  of 
the  mighty  power  of  God,(Ep]i.  l:19,'-^0.)  Now  to  shew  that 
such  as  are  the  subjects  of  true  faith,  beheve,  not  of  them- 
selves, but  through  grace,  I  rel'er  to  Acts  18:27:  where  it 
will  be  seen  that  it  is  asserted  concerning  certain  disciples, 
that  they  had  believed  through  grace.''  And  if  through 
grace,  it  would  seem  to  follow  that  faith  is  the  gift  of 
God,  or  what  is  substantially  the  same  thing,  the  product 
of  his  power  and  good  will  to  man.  It  is  presumed  that 
Mr.  C.  would  hardly  venture  to  assert  that  he  believed 
the  historical  accounts  of  these  United  States,  which  in- 
duced him  to  emigrate,  "  through  grace.'' 

With  a  view  to  confirm  and  fully  establish  the  import- 
ant doctrinal  and  scripture  truth,  that  faith  is  the  gift  of 
God,  I  must  request  the  attention  of  the  reader,  while  I 
attempt  to  investigate  one  other  saying  of  the  great 
apostle:  "  For  unto  you  (Phil.  1:29,)  it  is  given,  in  the 
behalf  of  Christ,  not  only  to  believe  on  him,  but  to  suffer 
for  his  sake."  This  passage,  both  in  the  letter  and 
spirit  of  it,  seems  to  correspond  with  that  in  the  epistle 
to  the  Ephesians,  (Eph.  2:8.)  And  it  is  well  worthy  of 
our  particular  notice,  that  the  verb  in  the  original,  which 
is  here  translated  is  given,'"  comes  from  charis,  (which 
signifies  grace  or  favor,)  and  that  it  means  "  to  grani  or 
hest-oir  freely^  as  a  favor  or  gift."  Thus  it  is  not  only 
used,  but  correctly  translated  in  Rom.  8:32:  "  He  that 
spared  not  his  own  Son,  but  delivered  him  up  for  us  all, 
how  shall  he  not  with  him  freely  give  us  all  things."  In 
the  gospel  of  Luke  (7:21,)  we  find  the  same  verb  not  only 
used  in  the  same  sense,  but  in  such  a  connection  as  may 
serve  to  illustrate  the  manner  in  which  Jehovah  "  Jesus, 
the  auilior  and  finisher  of  our  faith,"  confers  this  gift 
through  the  exertion,  not  of  his  miraculous  power  as  in 
the  case  alluded  to,  but  by  the  mighty  power  of  his  saving 
and  efficacious  grace.  "  And  the  same  hour  he  cured 
many  of  their  infirmities  and  plagues,  (fee,  and  unto  many 
that  were  blind  he  gave  sight." 

In  responding  to  my  reply,  Mr.  C.  also  asserted,  upon 
the  autliority,  not  of  God's  word,  but  of  Dr.  IMacknight, 


CAMP6£LLISM. 


as  he  then  informed  his  audience,  (whilst  in  his  narrative 
the  assertion  stands  naked  and  unsupported,  except  by 
the  weight  of  his  own  authority,)  "  that  faith,  ranked 
amongst  the  fruits  of  the  Spirit,  was  fidelity  associated 
with  temperance  and  meekness." 

In  my  .second  reply  to  Mr.  C.  it  was  observed,  in  re- 
futation of  this  assertion,  that  the  apostle,  (Gal.  5:19 — 25,) 
after  having  given  a  catalogue  of  the  works  of  the  flesh, 
enumerates,  by  way  of  contrast,  not  the  virtues  which 
the  heathen  may  possess,  but  such  holy  dispositions  and 
graces  as  are  the  essential  characteristics  of  true  chris- 
tians; all  of  which  are  declared  by  the  apostle  to  be  "  the 
fruit  of  the  Spirit."  It  is  true,  the  original  word,  (pistis,) 
here  rendered/ai7//,  does  sometimes  mea.nfideHty  or  faith- 
fulness. Thus  the  apostle  in  his  letter  to  Titus,  (2:10,) 
after  having  directed  him  to  exhort  servants  to  be  obedi- 
ent unto  their  own  masters,  &c.,  adds:  Not  purloining, 
but  shewing  all  good  (pistin)  fidelity,  &c.  So  also  the 
apostle  (Rom.  3:3.)  inquires:  "  What  if  some  did  not  be- 
lieve? shall  their  unbelief  make  the  faith  (pistin)  of  God 
without  eflfect?"  In  this  instance  "  the  faith  of  God" 
unquestionably  means  his  faithfulness;  for  the  apostle 
adds,  verse  4,  •*  God  forbid:  Yea,  let  God  be  true  but 
every  man  a  liar,"  &c.  The  inquiry,  then,  arises,  how 
are  we  in  each  particular  instance,  or  in  the  case  now 
under  consideration,  to  determine  in  what  sense  this  word 
(piSTis)  is  to  be  understood?  I  answer,  by  the  connection 
in  which  it  is  found,  and  if  any  doubt  still  remain,  by  the 
analogy  which  may  exist,  between  the  passage  where 
the  meaning  of  the  term,  pistis,  may  seem  to  be  doubtful, 
and  other  passages  where  no  such  doubt  can  exist, — thus 
**  comparing  spiritual  things  with  spiritual." 

But  Mr.  C.,  with  seeming  disregard  of  every  rational 
method  of  ascertaining  in  what  sense  the  apostle,  in  this 
instance,  used  the  word  pistis,  whilst  he  is  compelled  to 
acknowledge,  that  it  is  "  ranked  amongst  the  fruits  of  the 
Spirit, — boldly,  but  without  assigning  a  reason,  or  refer- 
ring to  one  scripture  authority,  asserts,  that  faith,  in  the 
text  under  consideration,  means  fidelity,  associated  witii 


66 


DEBATE  OSr 


meekness  and  temperance."  Doe.^  Mr.  C.  rnean  to  assert 
there  is  no  difference  between  christian  fidility  and  kea- 
iJien  fidelity,  in  the  same  manner  that  he  asserts  there  is 
no  difference  between  historical  faith  and  that  faith  to- 
wards the  Lord  Jesus  Christ/'  which  "  accompanies  sal- 
vation?" It  is,  I  think,  fairly  to  be  presumed,  that  as  he 
contends  there  is  but  one  kind  of  faith,  so  also,  he  holds 
there  is  but  one  kind  of  fidehty.  Will  Mr.  C,  then,  main- 
tain, that  the  fidelity  which  the  heathen  have  evinced, — 
the  fidelity,  for  instance,  of  Roman  patriots,  and  Roman 
matrons,  who  lived  before  the  hght  of  the  gospel  dawned 
upon  their  country, — was  "  the  fruit  of  the  Spirit?"  Let 
ii  be  remembered,  that  Mr.  C.  admits  that  the  word  "  fis- 
Tis,"  whether  its  true  meaning  be /<r//7A  or  fidelity,  is  "rank- 
'jd  amoD^  the  fruits  of  the  Spirit."  If,  then,  it  meaas 
fidelity,  as  he  asserts,  and  not  faith,  it  follows  of  necessity 
that  he  must,  either  draw  a  distinction  between  christian 
n  iid  hesiiheii  fidelity,  or  assert  that  the  latter  is  in  the  same 
sense  a  fruit  of  the  Spirit  as  the  former.  If  this  be  his 
belief,  it  w^ould  be  not  only  gratifying,  but  edifying  to  the 
christian  community,  if  Mr.  C.  would  give  to  the  public 
his  creed  in  relatic>n  to  the  Holy  Spirit,  as  he  has,  at 
length,  and  especially  in  his  late  inten  iew  and  altercation 
with  Rev.  Mr.  Jamieson,  at  Mount  Holly,  Kentucky,  been 
compelled,  as  it  would  seem,  to  do,  in  relation  to  the  doc- 
trine of  the  Trinity  and  absolute  Divinity  of  that  Saviour, 
"  in  Avhom  dwells  the  fulness  of  the  Godhead  bodily." 

On  the  other  hand,  if  Mr.  C,  should  attempt  to  distin- 
gLiish  christian,  from  heathen  fidelity,  it  is  not  perceived 
that  he  would  gain  any  thing  by  his  assertion,  if  it  even 
were  correct,  pra\-ided  the  fonner  be  rightly  understood. 
Whilst  it  is  not  intended  to  touch  upon,  much  less  to  de- 
cide, the  question,  whether  a  heathen,  in  the  fullest  sease 
of  the  word,  may  not,  in  the  sovereign  mercy  of  God,  and 
without  the  liglit  of  revelation,  be  endued  with  the  fruits  or 
graces  of  the  vSpirit;  be  brought  into  a  state  of  favor  or 
acceptance  with  God;  and  be  made  meet  for  the  inheri- 
tance of  the  saints  in  light,  it  must  be  evident,  after  a 
careful  examination  of  the  word  of  God,  to  all  who  wili 


CAMPBELLISM.  67 

seriously  reflect  upon  the  subjectj-that  there  is  a  wide  and 
well  founded  distinction  between  the  fidelity  of  a  true 
disciple  of  Christ,  and  that  of  w^hich  the  most  distinguish- 
ed of  the  heathen  world  have  been  the  subjects.  The 
former  ditiers  from  the  latter  especially  in  its  origin,  its 
operation,  and  the  end  it  has  in  \iew.    While  the  latter 
must  originate  in  some  principle  that  is  natural  to  fallen 
man,  the  former  springs  from,  and  is  inseparably  con- 
nected with,  "  faith  in  God,''  and    our  Saviour  the  Lord 
Jesus  Christ,*'  and  a  sacred  regard  to  his  authority  and 
all  his  commands,    If  ye  love  me,  (John  14:15,)  keep  my 
commandments."    While  the  latter  has  ever  been  but 
partial  in  its  operation,  and  regardless  of  many,  if  not 
the  most  of  the  precepts  of  the  moral  law,  with  which 
the  most  enlightened  of  the  heathen  have  ever  been  very 
imj^rt'ectly  acquainted,  the  former,  where  genuine,  must 
ever  have  an  universal  influence  upon- both  the  heart  and 
life  of  its  subject,  inducing  a  sacred  respect  to,  and  sincere, 
though  it  may  be,  (through  the  remaining  imperfection  of 
human  nature,  even  when  renewed  "  after  tiie  image  of 
God,")  imperfect  obedience  of  all  the  commandments  of 
God-    Thus  says  Christ  again,  (Jolm  15:14,)     Ye  are 
my  friends  if  ye  do  whatsoever  I  command  you.^' 
While  the  latter  induces  men,  according  to  the  declara- 
tion of  the  apostle,  (PhiL  1:21.)  to  "  seek  their  own.  not 
the  things  which  are  Jesus  Christ's,"  the  former  leads  thern 
to  appro \=e  themselves  unto  God,  and  habitually  to  aim  at 
the  promotion  of  his  glorv^;  so  that  w^hether  they  eat  or 
drink,  or  whatever  they  do,  they  desire  to  do  ail  to  the 
glory  of  God.    Thus  the  apostle  assigns  as  the  reason  for 
the  exhortation  which  he  directed  Titus  to  give  to  ser-' 
vants,  to  show  "  all  good  fidelity,"  iliat  thereby  they  might 
•*  adorn  the  doctrine  of  God  our  Saviour  in  all  things.'*  If 
Mr.  C.'s  views  of  christian  //^/e//??/ accord  with  those  just 
expressed,  and  which,  it  is  belived,  strictly  accord  with 
the  word  of  God,  what,  I  repeat,  is  he  to  gain  by  his  as- 
sertion concerning  the  true  meaning  of  the  word*  transla- 
ted/a/YA,  in  the  passage  under  consideration^    If  fidelity, 


68 


DEBATE  Olf 


thus  explained,  be  a  special  fruit  of  the  Spirit,  how  much 
more  ihdiX  faith  from  which  it  springs? 

There  is  still  another  view  of  this  subject,  deserving  of 
serious  consideration.  Mr.  C,  as  we  have  seen,  admits 
tliat  faith,  in  this  this  passage,  is  ranked  amongst  the 
fruits  of  the  Spirit,  and  that  it  is  associated  with  meek- 
ness and  temperance.  And  why  did  he  not  also  state, 
tiiat  it  is  equally  associated  with  "  love,  joy,  peace,  long- 
suffering,  gentleness,  goodness,"  all  of  which,  as  well  as 
"  faith,  meekness,  and  temperance,"  are  enumerated  as 
the  fruit  of  the  Spirit?" 

But  if  we  are  not  in  this  passage  to  understand  by  the 
word  piSTis,  that  faith  "  which  works  by  love"  and  where- 
by God  purifies  the  heart;  or  that  faith  whereby  we  are 
justified  and  have  peace  with  God,  but  something  inferior 
to  it,  why  may  not  Mr.  C.  as  well  contend,  that  by 
"  love,"  here  spoken  of,  we  are  not  to  understand  that 
supreme  love  of  God,  which  is  invariably  the  effect  of  his 
love  shed  abroad  in  tlic  heart,  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  Rom. 
5:5.  but  that  natural  affection  of  love  or  good  will  of 
wliich  all  men  are  more  or  less  susceptible;  or,  that  by 
the  "  peace,"  of  which  the  apostle  speaks,  we  are  not  to 
understand  that  peace  which  Christ  gives  to  such,  and 
such  only,  as  truly  believe  on  him,  which  is  called  the 
peace  of  God,  and  said  to  pass  all  understanding;  or, 
that  by  the  joy  which  is  mentioned  in  connection  with 
tliis  love  and  peace,  &c.,  is  not  intended  that  "  joy  in  the 
Holy  Ghost,"  wliich,  according  to  the  apostle,  (Rom.  14: 
7,)  constitutes  an  essential  part  of  that  kingdom  of  God 
which  is  begun  in  the  heart  of  every  one  that  is  born  of 
the  Spirit. 

Thus,  were  it  necessary,  h  might,  on  the  one  hand,  be 
demonstrated  by  the  strong  analogy  which  exists  between 
this  interesting  passage  of  God's  word,  and  many  other 
parts  of  the  same  unerring  testimony,  that  the  various 
graces,  dispositions,  or  affections  therein  mentioned,  are 
in  their  nature  truly  gracious  or  saving,  as  well  as  the 
special  fruit  of  the  Spirit;  and,  on  the  other,  that  it  would 


CAMPBELtlSJff. 


69 


not  be  more  inconsistent  for  Mr.  C.  lo  assert  the  contra* 
ry,  than  it  is  for  liim  to  deny,  as  he  does,  tJiat  pistis,  in 
this  passage,  means  faith,  even  that  wliich  is  the  gift  o4" 
God,  and  the  fruit  of  his  Spirit.  I  wiil  only  add,  upon 
this  particuJar,  that  if  faith  be  "  the  gilt  of  God,'"  or  "  the 
fruit  of  the  Spirit,"  as  the  great  mass  of  the  christian 
world  have  ever  understood  the  aposile  to  assert,  then 
not  only  is  the  assertion  of  Mr.  C.  to  the  contrary*  as 
"  is  the  chaft'to  the  wheat,"  but  his  whole  system  of  his- 
torical  faith  is  proved  to  be  false  and  deceptive.  And 
when  we  reflect  that  his  only  argument  to  prove  that 
faith  is  not  the  gift  of  God,  is  derived  from  the  gender  of 
TOUTO, — whilst  to  prove  that  faith  is  not  the  fruit  of  the 
Spirit,  he  rehes  upon  the  authority  of  his  own  naked  as- 
sertion,— who,  but  such' as  shut  their  eyes  against  the 
light  of  truth,  can  fail  to  discover,  that  his  foundation  is 
rottenness,  and  his  system,  "  a  refuge  of  liesV 

To  evade  the  force  of  the  argument  for  the  necessity 
of  the  saving  illumination  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  drawn,  as 
I  have  already  shown,  from  1  Cor.  2: 14,  Mr.C,  in  his 
response  to  my  first  reply,  asserted,  as  stated  by  him  in 
his  narrative,  that  the  natural  man  there  spoken  of  by 
Paul,  "  was  a  Pagan,  with  only  his  five  senses  to  guide 
him."  Or,  "  a  mere  animal  man,  destitute  of  any  oral  or 
written  revelation  from  God,"  and  therefore  "  could  not 
have  spiritual  ideas."  In  his  narrative,  Mr.  C.  adds,  "  but 
that  the  natural  man  of  the  schools,  was  the  sam.e  with 
that  of  Paul,  was  not  only  denied  but  evinced.'^  I  do  not 
certainly  know  what  is  intended  by  this  statem.ent  of  Mr 
C,  or  to  what  schools  he  alludes.  But  upon  the  supposi- 
tion that  he  means  to  be  imderstood  that  in  that  debate  it 
was  by  his  reasoning  evinced,  that  no  one  who  had  the 
jht  of  revelation  could  be  considered  a  natural  man,  in 
iie  sense  of  that  term  as  used  by  the  apostle.  I  ask  why 
iid  not  Mr.  C.  give  his  readers  at  least  a  hint  how  a  poirit 
so  important  to  his  system  or  rehgious  views  was  estab-  . 
lished?  Does  he  expect  his  readers  to  be  guided,  in  ma- 
ters of  the  first  importance,  solely  by  his  assei-tion.  and 
without  exercising  their  own  judizments?    Whether  Mr, 

♦7 


70 


DEKATE  OJf 


C.  did  evince  this  position,  or  whether  he  even  advanced 
one  plausible  argument  in  its  support,  are  questions  which 
are  cheerfully  referred  to  the  impartial  part  of  the  audi- 
ence that  were  present  upon  that  occasion.  It  is  true  he 
did,  as  usual,  confidently  assert  the  position,  which  he  at- 
tempted to  support  by  another  assertion^ — which  well 
accords  with  his  views  of  spiritual  things  and  spintual 
men, — ^that  there  was  not  a  natural  man,  according  to 
the  sense  in  which  the  apostle  used  the  word,  in  the  church 
that  evening. 

Mr.  C,  in  his  narrative,  states,  moreover,  that  I  "  did 
not  appear  to  have  apprehended  that  the  natural  man 
spoken  of  by  Paul  was  contrasted  with  the  spiritual  man.^"" 
In  this  he  is  certainly  much  mistaken,  for  on  this  very 
contrast,  in  connection  with  several  plain  declarations  of 
the  word  of  God,  was  founded  one  of  the  principal  ar- 
guments that  were  advanced  to  show  that  the  position  of 
Mr.  C.  was  as  absurd  as  it  was  unscriptural.  It  was 
contended  that  every  man  that  is  born  into  the  world, 
whether  he  be  a  Pagan,  or  infidel,  or  a  mere  histatncal 
believer  of  the  holy  scriptures,  but  has  not  been  "  born  of 
God,"  or  "  born  of  the  Spirit,"  is  the  very  natural  man 
spoken  of  by  the  apostle.  That  this  is  fully  supported  by 
the  declaration  of  our  Lord  himself,  in  his  conversation 
with  Nicodemus,  (John  3.)  "  Marvel  not  that  I  said  unto 
thee,  ye  must  be  born  again.  That  which  is  born  of  the 
flesh,  is  flesh,  but  that  which  is  born  of  the  Spirit  is  spirit." 
From  which  declarations,  as  well  as  many  other  passages 
of  the  word  of  God,  these  propositions  are  clearly  dedu- 
cible.  No  man  can  be  said  to  be  in  any  degree  spiritualy 
(and  therefore  must  remain  a  natural  man,  or  in  the  same 
state  in  which  he  was  born,  "  a  child  of  wrath,  even  as 
others,")  until  he  is  born  of  the  Spirit.  Nor  can  a  man 
who  has  been  born  of  God,  and  consequently  through 
grace  attained  to  a  degree  of  true  spirituality,  any  longer 
be  denominated  a  "  natural  man,"  but  has  been  brought 
out  of  nature's  "  darkness  into  God's  marvellous  light." 
Spiritual  persons  no  doubt  differ  greatly  as  it  regards  th^ 
attainments  which  they  respectively  make  in  spirituality'^ 


CAMPBELLISM. 


71 


or  in  other  v/ords,  the  divine  life.  Thus  we  hear  the  aposlle, 
in  the  comnriencement  of  the  next  chapter  of  liis  letter 
to  the  Corinthians,  reproving  them  by  reason  of  their  low 
attainments  and  their  remaining  carnahty,  and  in  so  do- 
ing he  speaks  as  though  they  were  not  spiritual  but  car* 
nal;  yet  he  acknowledges,  them  to  be  babes  in  Christ. 
But  as  it  regards  a  state  or  condition ,  the  scrii)tures  do 
not  warrant  us  to  expect  any,  more  desirable  or  exalted, 
than  that  which  is  designated  by  (he  term  spiritual  Thus 
it  is  said,  (Rom.  8:6,)  "  To  be  carnally  minded  is  death; 
but  to  be  spiritually  minded  is  life  and  peaceJ'  "  He  that 
is  spiritual  judgeth  all  things."  (1  Cor.  2:15.)  The  apos- 
tle describes  his  believing  brethren,  (Gal.  6:1,)  as  spir- 
itual The  blessings  also  bestowed  upon  such  as  are 
thus  born  of  God  and  truly  believe,  are  said  (Eph.  1:3.)  to 
be  "  all  spiritual  blessings  in  heavenly  places  in  Christ." 

How  different  from  all  this  is  Mr.  (J.'s  idea  of  a  spir- 
itual man?  Every  one,  however  earthly,  or  sensual  or 
devilish  he  may  be,  who  has  received  "  an  oral  or  written 
revelation  from  God,"  is,  in  his  view  a  spiritual  man.  I 
ask,  then,  whether  it  be  not  evident,  that  his  system  is  cal- 
culated and  designed  to  exclude  all  true  spirituality  from 
the  religion  of  the  bible? 

There  was,  moreover,  another  argument  urged,  which 
fully  shows  the  palpable  absurdity  of  Mr.  C.'s  explanation 
of  "  the  natural  man,"  to  which  he  was,  as  he  still  is,  pru- 
dent enough  not  to  attempt  any  repty.  It  is  not  only  said 
by  the  apostle  that  "  the  natural  man  receiveth  not  the 
things  of  the  Spirit  of  God,"  but  he  assigns  the  reason: 
"  for  they  are  foolishness  unto  him."  Now,  says  Mr.  C, 
"  the  natural  man  is  a  Pagan,  with  only  his  five  senses  to 
guide  him, — a  mere  animal  man,  destitute  of  any  oral  or 
written  revelation  from  God."  A  man,  then,  who  has 
never  heard  or  read  any  thing  concerning  these  "  things 
of  the  Spirit  of  God:"  and  yet  in  estimation,  or  judg- 
ment concerning  these  things,  of  which  he  has  never  heard 
and  consequently  has  formed  no  idea  whatever,  "  they 
ore  foolishness."  What  consummate  absurdity!  Many, 
it  is  believed,  are  ready  to  pronounce  Mr.  C.'s  explana- 


72 


DEBATE  ON 


tion  of  "  the  natural  man,"  spoken  of  by  Paul,  as  well  as 
all  the  leading  points  or  doctrines  of  his  system,  accord- 
ing to  their  apprehension  of  them,  to  he  foolishness — even 
the  consummation  of  the  most  dangerons  folly;  but  could 
they,  consistently  with  common  sense,  be  said  to  be  pre- 
pared to  do  this,  (be  their  judgment  right  or  wrong,)  if 
they  had  never  heard  of  Mr.  C.  or  any  of  his  religious 
opinions?  Thus,  I  conclude,  it  is  abundantly  clear,  that, 
though  the  Pagan,  who  is  "destitute  of  any  oral  or  writ- 
ten revelation  from  God,"  may  justly  be  considered  a 
"  natural  man,"  because  it  is  apparent  from  the  language 
of  the  apostle,  that  if  "  the  things  of  the  Spirit  of  God,^' 
were  made  known  to  him,  without  the  saving  illumina- 
tion of  that  Spirit,  he  would  not  receive  them,  inasmuch 
as  he  could  not  perceive  their  wisdom  and  excellence, 
"  because  they  are  spiritually  discerned:" — yet  the  phrase 
**  natural  man,"  as  used  by  the  apostle,  plainly  and  par- 
ticularly applies  to  the  person,  who  is  not  destitute  of  the 
light  and  information  which  God's  word  affords,  but  who, 
destitute  of  that  saving  illumination  whereby  the  things 
of  the  Spirit  are  discerned,  pronounces  them,  according 
to  his  judgment,  to  be  foolishness. 

When  we  consider  the  apparent  ignorance  of  Mr.  C. 
of  all  that  is  necessary  to  constitute  a  spiritual  man, 
we  cannot  be  surprised  that  he  should  be  of  opinion  that 
the  prayer  of  David,  (Ps.  119:18,)  can  have  no  appHca- 
tion  to  himself,  or  any  person  under  the  dispensation  of 
the  gospel.  Upon  the  same  principle,  Mr.  C.  never  has 
offered,  and  never  can,  with  propriety,  offer  any  of  the 
petitions  contained  in  this  psalm,  which  has  been  the 
source  of  so  much  help,  and  comfort,  and  edification  to 
the  pious  in  all  ages;  and  especially  those  in  which  the 
man  after  God's  own  heart  repeatedly  breathed  forth 
the  desires  of  his  soul  that  God  would  "  teach  him  his 
statutes  " — that  his  ways  might  be  directed  to  keep  them 
— that  his  heart  might  be  sound  in  them.  But  if  it  should 
please  God  to  give  Mr.  C.  "repentance  to  the  ack- 
nowledging the  truth,"  and  to  open  his  eyes  to  see  that 
"  the  commandment "  of  God  "  is  exceeding  broad,"  or 


CAMPBELLISM. 


73 


so  to  enlighten  his  understanding,  as  to  give  him  to  per- 
ceive that  all  our  own  supposed  light  within  us,  relating 
to  spiritual  things,  is  darkness,  then  he  would  begin  to  be 
sensible  of  the  spiritual  ignorance,  and  blindness  of  heart, 
which  characterises  every  son  and  daughter  of  Adam, 
and  would,  be  often  led,  and  especially  when  about  to 
look  into  the  sacred  volume,  which  contains  the  law  of 
liberty,  to  lift  up  his  heart  to  God,  in  the  words  of  David, 
"open  thou  mine  eyes,  that  I  may  behold  wondrous 
things  out  of  thy  law." 

Notwithstanding  all  that  has  been  already  exhibited  in 
this  narrative,  concerning  the  method  of  expounding,  or 
rather  wresting,  the  scriptures,  adopted  by  Mr.  C;  and 
notwithstanding  also  the  numerous  corruptions  of  the  sa- 
cred text,  contained  in  his  version  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment, some  of  which  will  be  noticed  in  the  sequel:  he  had, 
upon  this  occasion,  and  w^hilst  responding  to  my  first  re- 
ply, the  modesty  to  assert,  that  whilst  the  leaders  of  the 
various  religious  sects,  taught  the  people  to  believe  in 
their  several  glosses,  and  false  expositions  of  the  bible, — 
in  all  his  public  exhibitions,  he  presented  to  the  view  of 
his  audience,  nothing  but  the  pure  word  of  God — *nd 
that  if  there  was  any  thing  wrong,  or  incorrect,  in  what 
he  held  forth,  as  worthy  of  their  belief;  the  bible,  and  not 
himself,  was  to  be  blamed.  This  was  a  declaration 
which  I  was  not  prepared  to  expect  even  from  Mr.  C, 
and  of  all  that  he  uttered  at  the  different  times  of  the  de- 
bate, it  is  believed  he  advanced  nothing,  that,  for  arro- 
gance, and  a  bold  disregard  of  truth,  could  be  said  to 
equal  this  assertion.  In  both  these  respects,  the  assertion 
was  so  palpable,  it  was  not  deemed  ner.essary,  in  my  se- 
cond reply,  to  spend  much  time  in  its  refutation.  It  was, 
however,  briefly  remarked,  that  if,  instead  of  giving  to 
his  audience,  in  his  public  harangues,  his  own  expositions, 
so  different  from  the  plain  meaning  of  the  scriptures — 
and  if,  in  addition  to  this,  instead  of  using  his  corrupi 
'  version  of  the  New  Testament,  he  would  forbear  the  use 
of  any  translation  of  the  bible,  and  in  his  attempts  to  en- 
lighten and  instruct  the  people,  he  would  read,  or  other- 


74 


DEBATE  ON 


wise  exliibit  the  word  of  God  alone,  in  the  original  lan- 
guages in  W'hich  it  was  written,  and  that  too,  without 
comment,  or  explanation,  then,  his  assemion  might  be 
true,  but  not  othenvise.  And  it  may  also  be-added,  that 
in  such  case,  his  pubhc  instructions,  if  they  did  no  good 
— w^ould  at  least,  have  one  recommendation,  w'hich  it  is 
to  be  feared  they  now  too  often  want — they  would  do 
no  harm. 

While  I  was  making  my  first  reply  to  Mr.  C,  I  ob- 
served some,  one,  if  not  more,  of  his  brethren,  engaged 
in  taking  notes;  and  while  Mr.  C.  w%as  responding,  they 
seemed  careful  to  refresh  his  memory,  that  nothing  ad- 
vanced by  me,  deemed  worthy  of  notice  might  pass 
without  animadversion.  After  Mr.  C.  however  had, 
through  the  aid  thus  afforded,  nearly  concluded  his  re- 
marks upon  my  reply,  one  of  his  friends  and  followers 
rose  and  observed,  that  there  were  some  present  who 
wished  to  hear  him  say  somethmg  upon  the  "  mystery  of 
the  five  points,"  to  which  his  brotiier  J.  Creath,  as  before 
obsen-ed,  had  alluded.  To  which  Mr.  C.  replied,  they 
should  be  gratified:  and,  after  repeating  or  enumerating 
them  upon  the  ends  of  his  fingers,  entered  upon  the  discus- 
sion of  one  of  the  five  points.  After  a  few  moments  re- 
flection upon  the  course,  it  would  be  proper  to  pursue,  I 
rose  and  requested  to  be  infr»rmed  whether  Mr.  C.  intend- 
ed, upon  that  occasion,  to  discuss  the  five  points;  at  the 
same  time  stating,  if  such  were  his  intention,  I  should 
certainly  forthwith  retire,  as  it  was  not  only  introducing 
new  subjects  into  the  discussion,  but  such,  as  it  was  not 
my  intention,  upon  that  occasion  to  discuss,  if  even  time 
and  circumstances  permitted,  which  they  certainly  did 
not.  To  this  suggestion  Mr.  C.  very  promptly  replied, 
that  if  I  wished  to  say  any  thing  further,  he  would  forbear, 
and  immediately  gave  an  opportunity  for  a  second  reply 
on  my  part  The  substance  of  this  second  reply,  which 
Mr.  C.  is  pleased  to  call  a  repetition  of  the  first,  has 
already  been  incidentally  given  in  noticing  his  attempt  to 
do  away  the  force  or  application  of  the  various  passages 
of  the  word  of  God  which  were  urged  in  my  first  reply. 


CAMPBELLISM. 


75 


in  refutation  of  his  views  of  faith.  I  shall  not  therefore 
trouble  my  readers  with  any  thing  further  in  relation  to 
it,  excepting  only  to  state,  (and  that  for  a  particular 
purpose  which  will  appear  in  the  sequel,)  that  when  I 
rose  the  second  time,  it  was  observed,  by  way  of  preface, 
I  would  efideavor,  as  briefly  as  possible,  to  notice  what 
had  been  advanced  by  Mr.  C.  in  his  second  speech. 
But  that  in  so  doing,  I  should  be  under  the  necessity  of 
relying  exclusively  on  my  memory,  as  I  neither  had  any 
notes,  nor  yet,  like  my  opponent,  an  Aaron  and  a  Hur,  to 
hold  up  my  hands,  if  they  should  become  wearied  or 
f feeble. 

When  I  had  concluded  my  second  reply,  I  observed 
that  the  state  of  my  health  and  other  circumstances,  (it 
being  then  10  o'clock  on  Saturday  night,  and  I  having 
the  usual  labors  of  the  Sabbath  to  perform  the  next  day,) 
required  me  to  retire.  I  accordingly  did  retire,  not  much 
regretting  that  I  did  not  hear  Mr.  C.'s  concluding  speech, 
especially  as  I  could  not  have  entertained  the  expecta- 
tion of  having  an  opportunity  to  make  a  further  reply, 
had  I  remained  longer,  which  indeed  a  sense  of  duty 
would  not  permit. 

Nevertheless  Mr.  C,  with  his  usual  regard  to  consist- 
ency, whilst  he  admits  "  the  lateness  of  the  hour,"  to 
which  the  discussion  was  protracted,  and  insinuates  that 
there  was,  on  my  part,  an  undue  appropriation  of  the 
time  that  was  occupied  in  debate,  (which  1  do  not  believe 
to  be  correct,  though  of  this  I  cannot  speak  positively,) 
talks  about  my  ''precipitate  retreat  from  the  house." 
Whether  my  retreat  was  precipitate,  or  whether  Mr.  C.'s 
assertion  is  unfounded,  let  the  reader  judge. 

I  have  been  induced  to  enlarge  more  than  I  had  in- 
tended upon  this  first  discussion,  or  that  part  of  the 
debate  which  took  place  on  the  evening  of  the  11th 
December,  by  the  consideration  of  the  importance  of  the 
subject  to  which  it  related.  It  is  to  be  feared  there  are 
too  many,  who,  whilst  they  cannot  be  persuaded  of  the 
efficacy  of  immersion  in  water  to  ivash  away  their  sins, 
are,  nevertheless,  too  readily  inchned  to  adopt  Mr.  C.'s 


76 


DEBATE  on 


views  of  faith,  and  to  draw  the  conclusion  that  they  are 
christians;  and  consequently  will,  somehow,  be  saved 
from  punishment  in  a  future  world,  because  they  enter- 
tain an  historical  belief  that  Jesus  Christ  is  the  Saviour  of 
men;  whilst  they  never,  in  any  degree,  realize  the 
truth  or  receive  the  doctrine  that  "  he  gave  himself  for 
us,  that  he  might  redeem  us  from  all  iniquity,  and  purify 
unto  himself  a  pec uhar  people  zealous  of  good  works," 
by  faith  and  by  their  obedience  of  the  truth  through  the 
Spirit,  (1  Pet.  1:22.)  If  it  shall  please  God  to  bless  what 
has  been  written  for  the  conviction  of  one  soul  of  the 
danger  of  resting  in  this  faith,  in  such  manner  that  he 
may  be  induced  so  to  receive  "  the  love  of  the  truth," 
that  he  "  may  be  saved,"  my  labor  will  be  amply  reward- 
ed; and  the  end  which  I  hope  I  have  principally  in  view 
in  this  publication,  will,  at  least  in  some  degree,  be 
accompHshed. 


CAMPBELLISM. 


77 


PART  II. 

THE  PI?ETENSIONS  OF  THE  REFORMER  EXAMINEIV— 
EVANGELICAL  DENOMINATIONS  VINDICATED— MR.  C. 
SHOWN  TO  BE  A  SECTARIAN— HIS  PRINCIPLES  AND 
HIS  NEW  VERSION  TESTED. 

In  the  early  part  of  the  ensuing  week,  Mr.  C.  left 
Nashville,  to  visit  (as  he  informs  us  in  his  narrative) 
Franklin  and  Columbia.  Upon  his  narrative  of  this  visit, 
i  shall  trouble  my  readers  with  but  few  remarks.  The 
insinuations  of  Mr.  C.  against  the  Rev.  Garner  McConni- 
co,  who  has  long  been  esteemed  a  faithful  laborer  in  the 
Lord's  vineyard,  I  have  good  grounds  to  believe  to  be  as 
unfounded,  as  they  are  base  and  unmanly,  and  such  as 
no  magnanimous  and  generous  opponent  would  make, 
however  little  he  mJght  be  sensible  of  religious  obligations. 
Whilst  the  Presbyterian  and  Episcopal  churches  in 
Franklin  seem  to  be  well  repaid  in  his  narrative,  for 
their  liberality  in  affording  to  Mr.  C.  the  use  of  their  re- 
spective houses  or  places  of  worship;  I  am  well  assured 
of  ihe  incorrectness  of  his  assertion,  that  it  was  "  much 
to  the  dissatisfaction"  of  the  people  of  the  Presbyterian 
church  in  Columbia  that  he  was  prevented  from  occupy- 
ing their  meeting  house.  It  is  true,  there  may  havo  been 
a  few  individuals,  (not,  as  I  am  informed,  exceeding  three 
or  four  in  number,)  who  expressed  some  dissatiivfaction. 
This  however  in  Mr.  C.'s  view,  was  sufficient  to  warrant 
the  broad  and  reckless  assertion,  which  iry  calcub/ed  as 
it  must  have  been  designed,  to  make  the  impression  that 
a  decided  majority  of  the  people,  who  usuallv  attend  the 
Presbyterian  church  in  Columbia,  were  much  dissatisfied 
that  he  was  not  permitted  to  occupy  their  meeting  house. 
According  to  the  information  which  I  have  received,  and 
which,  it  is  believed,  may  be  relied  upon,  this  is  fo  far 
from  being  the  fact,  that  it  must  be  considered  as  one  of 
the  faisp-  assf^iarfs  with  which  his  narrative  abounds. 
Whilst  Mr,  C.  was  gone  on  his  visit,  it  evidently  appeared 


7B 


»EBATE  &rf 


that  the  public  feehng  had  been  not  a  little  excited"  m 
consequence  of  the  discussion  that  had  unexpectedly  taken 
place  as  before  related;  and  that  not  a  few  were  really 
desirous  that  a  further  aiid  fuller  discussion  should  be  had, 
and  especially  with  a  view^  to  obtain  an  ai:iswer  to  the 
question — what  is  truth?"  It  was  nfK)reover  intimated 
to  me  that  it  was,  at  least,  very  probable,  that  Mr.  C.^ 
on  his  return  to  Nashville,  would  again  invite  objections 
to  the  principles  he  had  advanced;  or,  in  othei'  words>. 
give  a  pubhc  challenge  for  a  further  debate;  and  that,  in 
tliat  event,  it  was  thought,  especially  after  what  had  taken 
place,  I  could  not  decline  to  meet  him  widiout  leaving: 
tl)'3  cause  of  truth  to  sutler  injury.  After  mature  and 
prayerful  reflection,  I  came  to  the  determination  not  to 
decline  an  in\dtation  or  challenge  for  a  further  discussion,, 
should  it  be  given.  Accordingly  when  ]\ir.  after  his 
return  from  the  south,  held  forth  in  the  Baptist  church  on 
Friday  evening,  the  24th  of  December,  I  again  attended,- 
as  well  to  hear  what  he  might  allege,  as  to  ascertain 
whether  he  would  im-ite  to  a  further  public  discussion. 
It  is  true,  that  uyjon  this  occasion,  for  the  first  time,  I  took 
a  few  notes  with  a  pencil,  and  consequently  the  assertion 
ef  Mr.  C.  that  I  took  Rotes  before  this  time,  is  not  true.. 
And  whilst  it  is  both  my  wish  and  intention  to  indulge 
and  to  exercise  towards  Mr.,  C,  every  proper  degree  of 
ca!^dor  and  forbearance,  I  cannot  persuade  myself  that 
the  incorrectness  of  his  assertion,  in  this  particular, 
originated  merely  in  mistake.  The  reason  for  this  wilf 
at  once  appear  to  the  reader,  by  his  recollection  of  what 
has  already  been  stated  in  the  preceding  part  of  this 
narrative.  I  had  never  before  heard  him  deliver  one  of  his 
public  haranscues,  except  on  the  evening  of  the  10th  of 
December,  w^hen  there  existed  not  a  shadow  of  a  reason 
or  fact  from  which  to  infer  that  I  took  notes.  And  when 
the  debate  took  place  on  the  next  evening,  it  was  mani- 
fest to  ^Ir.  C.  and  all  the  congregation  that  I  was  a?  desti- 
tute of  notes,  as  he  seems  to  be  of  a  regard  to  truth,  when 
a  point  (whether  of  great  or  small  importance)  is  to  be 
gained  bv  a  round  assertion.    I  am  aware  it  has  been: 


tIAMPBELLlSM. 


79 


alleged  that  I  have,  in  my  propKisals  for  thd?  publication, 
evinced  not  only  a  \\;mt  of  christian  charity.,  but  of  a 
-due  regard  to  decorum,  by  the  allegation  that  the  narra- 
tive of  Mr,  C.  abounds  with  false  assertions.  And  if 
such  be  not  the  fact,  it  is  distinctly  admitted  that  in  making 
such  a  charge,  I  am  justly  reprehensible,  and  that  in  no 
slight  degree.  But  my  only  apology  or  defence  is,  that 
the  allegation  is  true.  And  for  the  truth  of  it,  so  far  as  it 
regards  not  only  the  assertion  of  Mr.  C.  ju^t  noticed,  but 
others  which  I  shall  in  the  sequel  hav€  occasion  to  notice, 
1  can  confidently  api  eal  to  the  whole  of  the  congrega- 
tions who  attended  tl:ve  discussion;  and  notwithstanding 
in  his  assertions,  w^hich  are  alleged  to  be  false,  Mr.  C 
holds  the  affirmative,  and  consequently  the  burden  of 
proof  lies  \i\)cm  him,  yet  posiiix^  proof  of  the  incorrectness 
of  some  of  them  at  feast  can.  if  required,  be  adduced. 

After  Mr.  C.  had  concluded  what  he  calls  his  lecture, 
he  repeated  (as  stated  by  him  in  his  narrative)  the  invita- 
tion formerly  gix'en,  and  proposed  t)ie  next  day,  being 
Christmas,  to  hear  objections.  On  that  day  at  10  o'clc-ck 
A.  M.,  I  accordingly  repaired  to  the  Baptist  churcb- 
Mr.  C.  made  his  ow^n'  arrangements  as  stated  by  him  m 
his  narrative,  and  called  upon  Dr.  F.  Robinson  to  offici- 
txXo  as  'chsirmrvR,  f«.nd  Ftipultvted  that  not  more  them 
twenty  minutes  should  be  occupied  at  one  time  by  any 
one  speaker. 

In  the  conclusion  of  his  narrative,  Mr.  C,  has  urderta- 
lien  to  state  what  was  "  unquestionahly"  my  "  object  m 
avaihng"  myself  of  the  opportunity  thus  tendered  to 
make  objections  to  his  principles.  This  statement,  how- 
ever, like  many  others  made  by  him,  has  but  a  very  slight 
connection  with  truth  or  fact  Among  other  things,  he 
asserts  it  was  my  object  "  to  prejudice  the  community 
ragainst  the  reformatioTC  To  expose  to  the  view  of  an 
enlightened  community  the  deception  of  his  pretended 
reformation,  I  admit  w^as  my  leading  object  in  thus  avail- 
ing myself  of  the  opportunity  afforded  for  a  further 
public  discussion. 


80 


DEBATE  ON 


As  my  chief  object,  in  availing  myself  of  the  opportu- 
nity thus  tendered  for  a  further  puhUc  discussion,  was 
not,  as  Mr.  C.  in  the  conchision  of  his  narrative  alleges, 
to  prejudice  the  community  against  his  pretended  refor- 
mation, but  to  expose  its  true  features,  in  their  odious 
deformity,  as  well  as  the  trickery  and  presumption  of 
its  author,  to  the  view  of  an  enlightened  public,  I  deter- 
mined to  begin  with  an  examination  of  his  claim  to  be 
the  reformer  of  the  present  age.  As,  however,  the  ac- 
complishment of  my  main  design  required  that  several 
subjects  should  be  brought  under  discussion,  that  I  might 
bo  enabled  the  better  to  shape  my  course,  and  to  deter- 
mine as  to  the  degree  of  attention  which  could  with  pro- 
priety be  bestowed  upon  any  one  topic,  I  inquired  of 
Mr.  C,  through  the  chairman,  what  length  of  time  it  was 
proposed  to  devote  to  the  hearing  of  any  objections  that 
might  be  offered.  To  this  inquiry  he  replied,  that  such 
were  his  engagements,  that  he  would  be  under  the  ne- 
cessity of  leaving  Nashville  the  next  Monday  morning; 
and  consequently  that  Jay  alone  could  be  devoted  to  the 
Ql»ject  for  which  we  had  i!;en  met. 

This  reply  did  not  meet  my  expectation,  inasmuch  as 
it  was  my  desire,  if  the  (iebate  were  renewed,  to  have 
time  sumcien:  for  an  arn}»io  nisci??5Jir,n  of  The  preiensions- 
and  principles  of  Mr.  C.  But  as  the  whole  proceeding 
was  gratuitous  on  his  part,  I  made  no  objection  or  com- 
plaint, but  began  the  discussion  by  a  brief  notice  of  his- 
arrogance  in  claiming  to  be  the  rrformer  of  the  present 
age,  and  in  giving  to  his  rotten  system  of  disguised  infi- 
deUty,  the  title  of  "  The  refnrmation:'  It  was  alleged 
that  the  term  reforTnatiort,'''  when  used  in  relation  to  a 
church,  or  ecclesiastical  C(»mmnnity,  had  a  special  re- 
ference, to  errors  in  doctrine  and  in  practice.  Thus  the 
change  of  religion,  from  the  corruptions  of  Popery  to,  at 
least,  a  measure  of  its  primitive  purity,  as  begun  by  Lu- 
ther, A.  D.  1517,  is  byway  of  eminence,  justly  styled 
the  reformat  ion,  throughout  the  Protestant  world.  The 
corruptions  of  the  church  of  Rome,  both  in  doctrine  and 


CAHPBELLiSMc 


pTactice,  at  the  period  alluded  to,  were  great,  palpable, 
and  destructive  of  all  true  religion,  as  well  as  the  best 
interests  of  mankind.  At  this  period,  God  was  pleased 
to  raise  up  Luther,  as  the  instrument  in  his  hand,  of  a 
great  and  glorious  reformation,  which,  we  have  reason 
to  believe,  will  never  become  wholly  extinct,  but  con- 
tinue until  the  millenial  reign  of  the  King,  whom  God  has 
placed  upon  his  holy  hill  of  Zion.  Yet  Mr.  C.,  while  he 
seems  to  admit  that  Luther  commenced  the  great  work 
of  reformation,  would  evidently  be  considered  as  a  more 
distinguished,  and  important  personage  than  the  father  oT 
the  reformation.  His  pretensions  are  predicated  upon 
the  bold  and  false  assumption,  that  eitbsr  the  principles 
of  the  reformation  w-ere  unsound,  or  that  they  have 
again  been  lost  sight  of,  by  the  Protestant  churches, 
which  have  become  as  corrupt  as  w^as  the  church  of 
Home,  when  the  reformation  was  comirienced  by  Luther. 
Hence  Mr.  C.,  in  his  public  harangues,  talks  of  Protes- 
tant, as  w^ell  as  Catholic  Popery.  He  designates  the 
Protestant  churches,  without  exception,  as  the  mystical 
Babylon,  spoken  of  in  the  apocal\-pse,  and  calls  upon  all 
that  would  save  themselves  from  the  pollution  of  the 
evangelical  churches,  to  come  out  from  their  fellowship 
and  communion.  While  he  alleges  the  w  hole  evangel- 
ical  Protestant  church,  of  every  denomination,  not  only 
to  be  in  a  condition  similar  to  that  of  the  Jewish  church, 
when  God  by  his  prophet  declared  there  was  "no  sound- 
ness in  it,*'  but  also  as  enveloped  in  gross  darkness,  he 
does  not  hesitate  to  assert  there  is  nothing  in  the  Chris- 
tian w^orld  that  is  good,  praiseworthy,  or  deserving  re- 
gard or  imitation,  except  what  is  found  among  his  few 
followers,  such  as  have  fully  embraced,  or  are,  at  least 
m  some  degree,  well  affected  towards  his  pretended  re- 
formation. Among  this  latter  class  I  asserted,  and  still 
do  assert,  without  fear  of  contradiction,  are  found  not 
only  avowed  Arians,  but  most  of  the  infidels  and  semi- 
infidels  or  free-thinkers  of  our  country.  Hence  it  was 
alleged,  that  whilst  Mr.  C.  levelled  alf  his  shafts  against 
the  evangelical  churches,  and  chrit'tians  of  the  preset 

*8 


S2 


DEBATE  O.V 


day,  with  the  classes  of  society  just  discribed,  he  could 
fraternize,  and  with  that  particular  class  who  had  assum- 
ed the  semblance  of  an  ecclesiastical  community,  he  and 
his  followers  could,  and  did  actually,  hold  fellowship  in 
religious  worship  and  ordinances.*  Whilst  Mr.  C.  did 
not,  because  he  could  not,  deny  tliis  fact  without  contra- 
dicting some  of  his  own  statements,  and  especially  as 
contained  in  his  incidents  on  his  "  tour  to  Nashville,"  he 
loudly  complained  in  his  reply  to  my  observations,  of  the 
injustice  done  him,  by  what  he  asserted  to  be  a  calumni- 
ous charge  that  he  was  an  Arian.  To  which  it  was  re- 
plied, that  I  had  not  ej-prrssly  charged  him  with  being  an 
Arian,  but  only  adverted  to  the  fact,  that  whilst  he  de- 
nounced the  evangelical  churches  as  wholly  corrupt,  and 
unworthy  of  confidence,  he  and  his  followers  did  frater- 
nize witli  the  only  avowed  sect  of  Arians  in  our  country. 
Indeed  I  was  not  then  sufhciently  acquainted  either  with 
the  writings  or  opinions  of  Mr.  C,  in  relation  to  the 
doctrines  of  the  Trinty,  or  the  divinity  of  our  Lord  and 
Saviour  Jesus  (.'hrist,  to  enable  me  to  make  any  poshive 
declaration,  as  to  what  were  his  views  in  relation  to  these 
important  subjects.  I  would  however  observe,  that  the 
thanks  of  the  christian  community  are  justly  due  to  the 
Rev.  Mr.  Jamicson,  of  the  Methodist  E[)iscopal  Church, 
by  whom  Mr.  C.  was  met  in  pursuance  of  a  general 
and  public  challenge,  at  Mount  Holly,  Ky.  Though 
Mr.  C.  evidently  declined  a  contest,  after  he  himself,  or 
at  least  one  of  his  followers  with  his  approbation,  had 
cast  the  gauntlet;  \'et  in  the  altercation  upon  that  occa- 
sion, he  could  not  but  acknowledge  his  Arian  princi- 
ples— or  that  he  did  not  believe  Jesus  Christ  to  be  the 
Supreme  God.  The  christian  public  will  hereafter  be 
better  qualified  to  judge  of  Mr.  C.'s  pretensions,  as  a  re- 
f«3rmer,  when  they  understand  that  the  great  object  of 
his  reformation  is  not  to  suppress  vice,  reprove  wicked- 
ness, correct  abuses  of  that  which  is  good,  or  warn  sin- 
ners to  repent,  and  flee  from  the  wrath  to  conae,  but  to 


*  See  note  E. 


CAMPBELLI9M. 


83 


explode  the  most  important  doctrines,  as  well  as  insti- 
tutions of  the  gospel. 

This  leads  to  the  remark,  that  it  was  further  alleged  in 
the  examination  of  Mr.  C.'s  pretensions  as  a  reformer, 
that  the  grand  and  leading  design  of  Luther,  in  the  re- 
formatioh  which  he  commenced,  was,  nf)t  only  to  ex- 
pose the  corrupt  and  vicious  practices  of  the  Romish 
church  and  clergy,  but  also  to  bring  to  view,  as  worthy 
of  all  acceptation,  the  fundamental  doctrines  of  the  gospel 
which  had  been  long  hid  under  the  rubbish  of  their  mum- 
meries and  worthless  ceremonies.  This  great  reformer, 
no  doubt,  well  knew,  that  how^ever  the  pubHc  indignation 
might,  for  a  time,  be  excited  by  the  exposure  of  the  frauds, 
and  imposition,  and  corrupt  practices  of  the  Romish 
church  and  clergy,  there  would  be  no  genuine  and  last- 
ing reformation  produced  among  the  people,  unless  they 
could  be  brought  to  know,  and  obey  from  the  heart,  that 
form  of  doctrine  which  God  has  delivered  to  mankind  in 
his  word.  Of  this  form  of  doctrine,  the  grand  or  capital 
article,  was,  the  justification  of  a  sinner  by  faith  alone, — 
faith  towards  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ.  In  connection  with 
this,  was  the  doctrine  of  the  saving  influence  of  the  Eter- 
nal Spirit  of  God  upon  the  souls  of  men,  whereby  they 
are  sweetly  drawn  and  enabled  to  obey  the  truth,  or  that 
f@rm  of  doctrine  already  spoken  of,  and  whereby  this 
truth  is  made  effectual  for  the  purification  or  sanctifica- 
tion  of  their  souls,  according  to  the  declaration  of  the 
apostle  Peter,  (1  Pet..  1:22,)  "  Seeing  ye  have  purified  your 
souls  in  obeying  the  truth  through  the  SpiritJ^  These 
doctrines  accordingly  have  been  cordially  received,  and 
maintained  by  all  the  evangelical  reformed  churches, 
however  they  may  have  differed  or  may  still  differ  in 
opinion  on  other  and  less  important  points. 

With  a  view,  therefore,  to  show  how  wTjrthless  and 
unfounded  were  the  pretensions  of  Mr.  C.  to  be  a  reform- 
er, it  was  observed,  that  he,  as  well  as  the  Romish  church, 
(to  which  his  reformation  would,  in  these,  as  well  as  in 
other  respects,  bring  us  back,)  virtually,  if  not  openly, 
exploded  these  fundamental  articles  of  the  "  faith  once 


84 


DEBATE  ON 


delivered  to  the  saints."  That  the  doctrine  of  the  saving 
intiuence  of  the  Spirit  of  God  upon  the  minds  of  men,  was 
by  him  not  only  denied,  but  held  up  to  ridicule  and  con- 
tempt, and  th(jugh  he  talked  much  about,  and  seemed  to 
lay  much  stress  on,  historic  faith,  it  was  evident  that  he 
made  vorks  the  instrumental,  if  not  the  meritorious  cause 
of  justification.  That,  in  periect  accordance  with  one  of 
the  most  unscriptural,  and  absurd  tenets  of  the  church  of 
Rome,  he  made  justification  to  consist  in,  or  at  least  to 
be  attainable,  only  through  baptism,  (immersion.)  He  en- 
deavored to  maintain  some  semblance  of  adherence  to  the 
doctrines  of  the  gospel,  by  alleging  that  we  are  not  to 
believe,  as  the  apostle  to  the  Gentiles  teaches  us,  (Rom.  .5: 
1,)  that  we  are  "  justified  by  faith," — or  a  reliance  of  the 
heart  upon  the  Saviour  of  sinners, — but  by  one,  and  only 
one,  (outward,)  act:  and  this  (which  he  calls  an  act  of 
faith)  ho  asserts  to  be  immersion. 

It  is  true,  Mr.  C.  would  have  us  to  believe,  that  he  is 
the  restorer  of  the  ancient  gospel,  and  the  primitive  order 
of  things  in  the  church;  but,  as  was  observed  in  examin- 
ing his  claims  to  be  a  reformer,  he  appeared  rather  to 
resemble  some  of  the  characters  which  the  apostle,  in  his 
second  letter  to  Timothy,  (chap.  3:1 — 6,)  declared  should 
come  in  the  last  days;  especially,  such  as  he  describes 
as  "  boasters,  false  acc2isers,  despisers  of  those  that  are 
good,  headtj,  high  minded^  having  the  form  of  g('dline?s 
but  denying  the  power  thereof." 

After  having  thus  briefly  noticed  the  claims  of  Mr.  C, 
as  the  pretended  reformer  of  what  he  calls  "  this  sectari- 
an age,"  I  began,  as  he  states  in  his  narrative,  "  a  defence 
of  the  sects,  (of  evangelical  christians,)  from  [against]  the 
severe  condemnation"  he  had,  in  his  public  harangues, 
previously  delivered  in  Nashville,  pronounced  upon  them. 
And  truly  it  was  a  condemnation  as  severe,  as  it  was  pre- 
sumptuous and  unwarranted  by  the  word  of  God.  It 
was  nothing  less  than  "  the  vengeance  of  eternal  fire," 
against  every  one  who  was  guilty,  or  at  least  should  con- 
tinue to  be  guilty,  of  the  dreadfid  crimes  of  knowingly  or 
wilfully  connecting  himself  as  a  church  member  with 


CAMPBELLISM. 


85 


any  of  the  sects  of  evangelical  christians.  This  bold  de- 
nunciation was,  upon  the  occasion  of  the  debate,  repeat- 
ed by  Mr.  C,  in  the  most  unqualified  manner,  and  it  is  in 
substance  repeated  in  his  narrative,  wherein  these  vari- 
ous sects  are  described  "  as  the  daughters  of  the  Mother 
of  Harlots,"  against  whom,  he  asserts,  the  anathemas  of 
heaven  are  denounced,  "and  that  the  plagues  of  God  are 
threatened  to  them  who  will  not  come  out  of  this  secta- 
rian Babylon;" — or,  in  other  words,  as  J  understand  him, 
such  as  do  not  become  CampbeUites,  or,  at  least,  such  as 
do  not  renounce  all  connection  with  tlie  church,  and  be- 
come infidels  or  freethinkers  by  profession.  If  Mr.  C. 
manifested  as  much  zeal  in  warning  sinners -to  flee  from 
the  wrath  to  come,  as  he  does  in  denouncing  the  ven- 
geance of  heaven  (as  though  vengeance  belonged  unto 
himself  and  not  to  God)  against  the  great  mass  of  the 
ciiristian  community,  he  might,  perhaps,  in  some  limited 
degree,  be  entitled  to  the  appellation  of  a  reformer;  and 
througii  the  blessing  of  God,  might,  for  aught  we  know, 
be  the  instrument  of  as  much  good,  as  he,  unquestionably 
now  is,  of  injury  to  the  souls  of  men. 

In  so  far  as  Mr.  C.  seems  to  consider  that  I  vicM'  it  as 
a  desirable  thing,  rrVa*  the  church  of  God  snould  consist 
of  YD.riL)Lf,  zcc.Vi  rlciiOrTiiiiaiions,  he  is  mistaken.  The 
true  church,  consisting  of  all  of  ev^ery  name  or  sect,  who 
build  on  Jesus  Christ,  the  sure  and  only  foundation,  con- 
stitutes, in  the  view  of  the  various  sects  of  evangelical 
christians,  the  one  "  house  of  the  living  God."  Though 
this  is  the  house  of  God,  the  peculiar  object  of  his  care 
and  gracious  regard,  where  he  dwells  and  where  his 
people  enjoy  a  measure  of  his  presence,  as  from  time  to 
time  he  manifests  himself  to  them  as  he  does  not  unto  tlie 
world,  he  has,  nevertheless,  hitherto  permitted  this  one 
house  to  be  divided,  into  several  and  separate  apartments, 
by  walls  of  separation,  which  his  people  have  erected. 
Why  this  has  been  permitted,  it  would  most  likely  be  as 
useless  for  us  to  inquire,  as  it  would  be  to  ask  wherefore 
go  sharp  a  contention  was  permitted  to  take  place  between 
Paul  and  Barnabas,  as  to  catise  them  to  separate.  Sure- 


86 


DEBATE  ON 


ly  it  will  be  admitted  that  the  contention  and  subsequent 
separation  of  these  eminent  servants  of  God,  were  not 
things,  abstractly  considered,  to  be  desired,  but  rather  to 
be  deprecated;  and  yet  it  was  evidently  overruled  for  the 
furtherance  of  the  gospel.  Upon  the  same  principle,  it 
was  alleged,  in  defence  of  the  several  sects,  that  although 
the  division  of  the  church  into  various  denominations, 
might,  when  viewed  abstractl}-,  be  considered  an  evil, 
and  in  some  instances  may  hav^e  been  productive  of  evil, 
yet  that  all  w^ho  adhered  to  these  diflerent  sects,  were 
not,  on  that  account,  guilty,  and  especially  so  culpable  as 
to  be  the  subjects  of  the  anathemas  of  God,  is  evident  from 
the  consideration,  that  God  has  also  overruled  these  divi- 
sions of  his  church  for  the  furtherance  of  the  gospel,  and 
the  salvation  of  souls.  Thus,  for  instance,  can  any  pre- 
tend to  allege,  that  the  cause  of  truth  and  the  knowledge 
of  the  gospel,  have  not  been  promoted,  in  consequence  of 
the  existence  of  the  sect  of  the  Moravians,  and  that  too, 
to  an  extent  far  beyond  what  it  would  have  been  if  such 
a  sect  had  never  existed?  Again,  if  the  Llethodist  Epis- 
copal church  had  never  been  established,  will  any  pretend 
to  assert  that  so  large  a  portion,  even  of  our  own  popula- 
tion, could  hd^e  been  in  the  enjoymeVit  of  the  privileges 
and  hopes  of  the  blessed  goaj:>el,  as  is  now  the  case? 

It  was,  moreover,  alleged,  by  w-ay  of  defence  or  apolo- 
gy for  the  various  sects,  that  whenever  the  minds  of  men 
are  freed  from  the  shackles  of  ignorance  and  sujierstition, 
and  they  are  permitted  freely  to  investigate  the  impor- 
tant subject  of  religion,  and  the  system  of  truth  which  we 
must  believe  is  contained  in  the  bible,  provided  it  is  re- 
ceived as  the  word  of  God,  this  division  of  the  church 
into  various  families  or  religious  communities,  could  not, 
perhaps,  have  been  prevented,  unless  by  the  continued 
miraculous  interposition  of  its  great  Head. 

It  is  true,  we  have  reason  to  believe,  the  time  is  ap- 
proaching when  that  measure  of  divine  light  and  gracious 
influence  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  which  has  been  shed  upon  a 
benighted  world,  and  w^hich  is  at  present  evidently  in- 
creasing, shall  be  so  greatly  and  abuntantly  enlarged,  that 


CAMPBELLISM. 


87 


the  views  of  Christians  will  so  harmonize  as  to  remove 
all  necessity  or  pretence  for  those  walls  of  separation, 
which  now  exist,  when  they  will  either  be  removed  or 
permitted  to  moulder  into  dust.  And  it  may  be  noticed 
as  a  decisive  evidence,  not  only  of  the  increase,  but  of 
the  consequence  of  the  increase  of  this  light  and  influence, 
communicated  to  the  church  through  the  operation  of  the 
Spirit  of  God,  that  the  same  degree  of  zeal  and  industry 
to  build  up  these  walls  of  separation,  does  not  now  exist 
as  did  formerly,  even  within  the  recollection  of  many 
living  witnesses.  That  Christians,  of  various  denomina- 
tions, are  evidently  drawing  nearer  together,  and  whilst 


enlarge  the  house  of  God  by  various  benevolent  societies 
and  exertions,  the  walls  of  separation  are,  at  l^afet  in  a 
measure,  overlooked  and  left  to  decay. 

It  was  further  alleged,  that  man  is  so  constituted  that 
there  never  has  been  a  subject,  whether  it  related  to  re- 
ligion or  to  any  of  the  various  branches  of  science,  about 


views.  Hence,  in  all  ages  there  have  been  different  sects 
amongst  Philosophers,  as  well  as  amongst  Jews  and  Chris- 
tians; and  such,  it  was  apprehended  would,  at  least  for  a 
time,  continue  to  be  the  case,  even  on  the  supposition 
that  all  who  profess  to  be  Christians,  were  honest  and 
sincere  in  their  inquiries  after  truth.  And  who  but  Mr. 
C,  and  such  as  are  the  subjects  of  his  bigotry  and  delu- 
sion, can  believe  that  the  various  sects  of  Christians  in 
our  land,  will  fall  under  everlasting  condemnation  for  an 
honest  difference  of  views  with  regard  to  church  govern- 
ment; or  even  with  regard  to  some  doctrines  which  do 
not  lie  at  the  foundation  of  the  gospel?  I  am  however 
aware  that  Mr.  C.  will  say,  the  condemnation  is  not  on 
account  of  the  difference  of  sentiment,  but  the  consequent 
separation  into  sects.  To  this  I  reply  "  how  shall  two 
walk  together  except  they  be  agreed?"  Surely  if  peace  and 
unity  cannot  otherwise  be  obtained  or  preserved,  it  is  bet- 
ter they  should  say  to  each  other,  as  Abraham  did  to  Lot; 


they  are  engaged  in  strengi 


;thening  each  other's  hands  to 


among  men  a  diversity  of 


88 


DEBATE  ON 


"  let  there  I  pray  thee  be  no  strife  between  me  and  thee, 
separate  thyseh'  I  pray  thee  from  me." 

Indeed,  1  know  but  of  tw^o  expedients,  whereby  this 
division  of  the  christian  world  into  numerous  secis,  can 
be  prevented;  both  of  w-hich  I  trust  will  ever  be  rejected, 
with  abhorrence,  by  all  evangehcal  Christians.  The 
first  of  these  expedients  strikes  at  the  root  of  this  alleged 
grPMt  evil,  and  has  long  been  practised  by  the  Romish 
church,  with  great  success.  This  remedy  consists  in 
keeping  the  people,  as  far  as  possible,  in  gross  ignorance 
of  the  true  doctrines  of  the  bible,  and  authoritatively 
requiring  them  to  believe  whatever  the  church  declares, 
to  be  infallibly  true.  The  other  expedient,  is  designed 
to  prevent  a  division  of  the  Christian  world  into  various 
sects,  however  wide  may  be  the  diversities  of  opinion 
upon  the  subject  of  doctrine;  or,  where  such  division  does 
already  exist,  to  persuade  these  sects  to  lay  aside  their 
pecuharities,  to  sacrifice  their  own  opinions  and  views  of 
religious  truth  and  the  doctrines  of  God's  word,  or  at 
least,  to  hold  them  "  as  private  property,"  and  unite  in- 
one  enlarged  and  numerous  sect,  or  ecclesiastical  body. 
And  this,  in  order  that  all,  including  not  only  the  evangeli- 
cal denominations,  who  are  agreed  in  the  essential 
doctrines  of  the  gospel,  but  rehgionists  of  every  name, 
who  -profess  the  bible  to  be  the  word  of  God,  whether 
they  be  Arians,  or  Unitarians,  or  Universalists,  or  Sha- 
kers, or  Swedenborgians,  or  Campbellites,  or  those  of 
the  new  reformation  (called  Mormonites,  part  of  w^hom,  it 
would  seem,  lately  sprung  from  the  hot  bed  of  Campbell- 
ism,  as  the  mushroom  from  the  dunghill,)  may  be  mutu- 
ally acknowledged  as  brethren  and  members  of  Christ's 
bodv.  This  expedient,  which  for  years  past  has  been 
practised  by  Mr.  Campbell,  consists  in  exploding  the 
leading  and  fundamental  doctrines  of  the  gospel,  either 
as  having  no  existence,  or  being  altogether  unimportant, 
so  that  it  is  a  matter  of  no  moment  whether  they  be  be- 
heved  or  not.  And  instead  of  making  a  solemn  prefes- 
sion  of  having  "  obeyed  from  the  heart,  that  form  of 


CAMPBELLISM. 


89 


doctrine  which  God  has  deUvered"  us,  the  bond  of  union 
among  Christians,  to  substitute  in  its  place  a  historical 
hdief  of  facts,  and  not  doctrines,  together  with  an  atten- 
dance upon  the  outward  ceremony  of  immersion  in  water, 
with  a  view^  thereby  to  wash  away  sin. 

What  would  be  the  effect  of  Mr.  C.'s  scheme  upon  the 
church  of  God  and  the  interests  of  true  religion,  if  it 
were  generally  adopted,  it  was  further  alleged,  might, 
in  some  measure,  be  shewn  from  a  review  of  the  Jewish 
church,  before  and  at  the  time  of  the  advent  of  the 
Messiah.    In  that  church  there  existed  different  sects,  the 
principal  of  which  were  the  Pharisees  and  Sadducees. 
These  sects  were  so  widely  different  in  their  religious 
sentiments,  that  the  latter,  like  some  of  the  avowed  sects, 
and  others  who  pretend  to  be  no  sectanans,  in  our  own 
land  and  in  our  own  day,  w^ere  no  better  than  infidels, 
"  For  the  Sadducees  said,  (Acts  23:8,)  that  there  is  no 
resurrection,  neither  angel,  nor  spirit."    Still  they  w^ere 
Jews  "  outwardly"  as  the  disguised  infidels  above  alluded 
to  have  assumed  the  name  of  Christians,  and  attend 
upon,  at  least  some,  of  the  ordinances  of  the  gospel. 
Yet  among  these  Jewish  sects  there  were  no  separate 
communities  erected.    "  The  same  temple  (says  Dr. 
George  Campbell)  and  the  same  synagogues,  were  at- 
tended alike  by  Pharisees  and  by  Sadducees.    Nay,  there 
were  often  of  both  denominations  in  the  Sanhedrim,  and 
even  in  the  Priesthood."    Here  then  was  a  faint  resem- 
blance, a  feeble  illustration,  of  the  kind  of  religious  com- 
munity, or  church  communion,  which  Mr.  C.  would  fain 
establish  in  these  days,  (provided  always  he  may  have 
the  supreme  direction  of  it,)  the  members  of  which  shall 
be  bound  together  simply  by  immersion  in  water,  without 
any  regard  to  the  religious  opinions  which  they  may  re- 
spectively hold,  how^ever  unsound,  or  contrary  to  the 
faith  once  delivered  to  the  saints  they  may  evidently  ap- 
pear to  be,  provided  they  only  make  such  opinions  theii- 
oiLm  private  property,"  and  require  "  no  person  on  pain  of 
excommunication  to  adopt  them."*  Had  this  state  of  thing^ 

»  See  Mr.  C.'s  Millenial  Harbinger,  Vol.  2,  No.  3,  page  114. 
9 


90 


BE3ATE  ait 


among  the  Jews,  the  effect  to  prevent  divisions  and  (fis- 
sensions  among  the  members  of  the  church?  So  far  trum 
iU  that,  as  might  naturally  be  expected,  tiiese  were  the 
natural,  if  not  the  necessary  consequence  of  the  attempt 
to  an>algamate  sucli  discordant  materials.*  So  far 
was  this  state  of  the  church  fix>m  being  favorable  to 
godliness,  that  we  know  fixmi  the  language  of  Christ,  as 
werl  as  of  his  messenger,  who  was  sent  toprepare  the  way 
before  him,  that  the  most,  even  of  the  straitest  (or  strictest) 
sect  of  the  Jewish  church  (the  Pharisees)  were  but  as- 
whited  sepulchres, — men  who  could  make  long  prayers, 
kaving  the  form  of  godliness,  but  who,  like  Nicodemus^ 
when  he  came  to  Christ  for  instruction,  were  ignorant  of 
its  life  or  power. 

But  Mr.  C.  in  his  public  harangues,  as  well  as  in  his 
narrative,  first  assm^ies,  (as  he  did  also  in  the  debate,) 
that  the  va,rioiis  sects  of  evangelical  Christians  ar^  to  be 
viewed  as  the  daughters  of  the  mother  of  harlots,  and 
then  asserts  that  the  anathemas  of  heaven  are  denounced 
upon  both.  Let  us  hear  what  are  the  grounds  of  this 
daring  and  unchristian  assertion.  In  his  narrative,  he 
gives  a  summary  of  what  he  alleged  in  the  debate,  in 
support  of  this  charge,  which  he  calls /acfs,  viz.  That 
Paul  had  represented  divisions  among  Christians  as 
equivalent  to  a  literal  di\'iding  of  Christ;  and  the  assum- 
ing the  name  of  a  factionist  as  equivalent  to  represent- 
ing that  factionist  as  cinjcified  for  his  followei's,  and  his 
followers  as  immersed  into  his  name;  that  sects  were 
ranked  by  the  same  Paul  amongst  the  works  of  the  fiesh, 
and  classed  with  murder  and  adultery,  and  that  most  of 
the  wars  and  bloodshed  of  modern  Europe,  and  a  great 
majority  of  all  the  envies,  jealousies,  and  bickerings  in 
families  and  neighborhoods,  arose  from  this  cause." 

In  the  remarks  w^hich  I  shall  make  upon  this  extract 
from  the  narrative  of  Mr,  C,  as  has  already  in  several 
instances,  and  as  in  the  sequel  of  this  work  will  in  still 
more  numerous  instances,  be  the  ca«e,  I  will  not,  (and 


,*  See  ActSv  chapter  23^  before  referred  to- 


CAMPBELUSM^ 


01 


'chiefly  "because  through  imperfect  recollection,  I  cannot,) 
distinguish  between  what  was  urged  by  me  upon  the 
occasion  of  the  debate,  and  any  new  matter  that  may 
now  be  added,  nor  is  it  deemed  at  all  material  that  I 
should.  One  thing  however  I  have  endeavored,  and 
shall  still  endeavor  carefully  to  avoid,  that  is,  not  to  p«t 
into  the  mouth  of  Mr.  Campbell,  as  he  has  attempted  to 
put  into  mine  in  more  instances  than  one,  pretended  ar- 
guments, that  were  never  uttered.  And  further,  as  my 
■object  is  a  candid  examination  of  Mr.  C.'s  principles,  I 
shall  not  fail,  so  far  as  my  recollection  wilJ  serve,  to  no- 
tice all  his  leading  arguments. 

In  the  foregoing  extract,  Mr.  C.  evidently  alludes  to 
the  first  chapter  of  Paul's  first  epistle  to  the  Corinthian 
church,  which,  as  I  conceive,  manifestly  has  no  applica- 
tion to  any  of  the  sects  of  evangelical  Christians  as  they 
exist  at  this  day,  except  in  so  far  as  division?  or  conten- 
tions similar  to  those  which  existed  in  the  church  at 
Corinth,  may  be  found  to  exist  amongst  them,  or  in  any 
■individuai  church  beiongmg  to  any  of  these  Christian 
sects.  In  order  to  give  this  portion  of  scripture,  however, 
•a  forced  application  to  each  one,  and  all  of  the  evangeli- 
cal sects  in  our  country,  and  that  too  without  any  regard 
to  their  character,  or  spiritual  condition,  it  would  evidently 
seem  that  Mr.  C.  has  xmlfully  confounded  what  the 
apostle  in  that  chapter  calls  schisms,  but  which  in  our 
standard  version  of  the  New  Testament  is  translated 
*'  divisions,''^  with  the  Greek  word  which  sometimes  is 
translated  heresies  and  sometimes  sects. 

The  true  nature  of  the  divisions  spoken  of  by  the 
apostle,  he  himself  explains  in  the  11th  verse,  where  he 
informs  them  it  had  been  declared  unto  him.  that  there  were 
**  contentions^  among  them.  This  word  is  derived  from 
•a  Hebrew  term,  which  signifies  to  he  hot  icith  anger,  and 
is  the  same  that  is  translated  in  Rom.  1:29,  by  the  word 
''debate,''  and  in  Rom,  13:13,  by  the  word  ''strife:' 
Whoever,  then,  will  examine  these  passages,  as  well  as 
crrany  others  that  might  be  referred  to,  in  connection  with 
2  Cor.  chapter  1,  cannot  but  perceive,  that  the  Corinthian 


92 


DEBATE  ON 


church  wa§  indulging  that  which  was  sinful,  and  there- 
fore needed,  as  well  as  deserved,  the  solemn  rebuke  and 
exhortation  of  the  apostle.  Whereas  "  the  Greek  word 
AiRESis,  which  properly  imports  no  more  than  election 
or  choice^  was  commonly  emijloyed  by  the  Helenist 
Jews,  in  our  Saviour's  time,  when  the  people  were 
much  divided  in  their  religious  sentiments,  to  denote  any 
branch  of  the  division,  and  was  nearly  equivalent  to  the 
English  words,  class,  party,  sect.  The  word  was  not,  in 
its  earliest  acceptation,  conceived  to  convey  any  reproach 
in  it,  since  it  was  indifferently  used,  either* of  a  party  a}> 
proved,  or  of  one  disapproved  by  the  writer."  That  this 
is  a  correct  explanation  of  the  word  translated  sect,  could 
be  clearly  proved  by  a  comparison  or  examination  of 
various  passages,  which,  upon  the  present  occasion,  is  not 
deemed  necessary,  as  it  can  be  shown  to  be  the  view 
which  Mr.  C.  himself  has  adopted.  In  the  forty-eighth 
appendix  to  his  version  of  the  New  Testament,*  will  be 
fjund  an  extract  from  Dr.  George  Campbell's  Prelimina- 
ry Dissertations,  from  which  the  above  quotation  is  ta- 
ken; and  in  his  A})pcndix  No.  68,  Mr.  C.  informs  us,  that 
"  of  the  words  heresy  and  schis7?i"  he  adopts  Dr.  Camp- 
bell's interpretation,  in  preference  to  any  other. 

If,  therefore,  the  reader  can  conveniently  refer  to  the 
observations,  at  length,  of  Dr.  George  Campbell  upon  the 
words  schism  and  heresy^  as  contained  in  his  ninth  Pre- 
liminary Dissertation,  parts  three  and  four,  he  will  per- 
ceive, as  before  stated,  that  Mr.  C.  wilfully  confounds  the 
schisms  or  divisions  spoken  of  by  the  apostle  in  the  first 
chapter  of  his  first  epistle  to  the  Corinthians,  which  ex- 
isted in  that  church,  not  on  account  of  any  difference  of 
sentiments  in  regard  to  doctrines,  either  more  less  impor- 
tant, but  in  consequence  of  "  an  undue  attachment  to 
particular  persons,"  thus  "  classing  themselves  under 
different  heads,  to  the  manifest  prejudice  of  the  common 
bond  of  charity,"  with  the  word  sect,  which,  according  to 
Dr.  George  C,  (and  which  opinion  is  unqualifiedly  adopt- 
ed by  the  Bishop  of  Bethany,  in  his  appendix  No.  48,  be- 
fore alluded  to,)  "  has  always  something  relativ  e  in  it;  and 


93 


therefore  in  different  applications,  though  the  general  inn- 
port  of  the  term  be  the  same,  it  Avill  convey  a  favorable 
idea,  or  unfavorable,  according  to  the  particular  relation 
it  bears.".  I  do  not  wish  to  be  understood  as  asserting 
the  various  sects  of  evangelical  Christians,  or  any  of  them, 
to  be  faultless,  or  that  the  observ  ations  of  the  apostle,  in 
the  first  chapter  of  his  first  letter  to  the  Corintliians  has 
never  had,  or  may  not  now  have  an  application  to  some, 
or  even  to  all  of  them;  or  to  some  of  the  indivi<lual 
churches  or  congregations  of  which  these  sects  consist: 
but  I  do  affirm,  and  that  upon  the  authority  of  God's  word, 
and  according  to  an  explanation  of  that  word,  which 
Mr,  C.  has  himself  adopted,  that  where,  or  in  so  far  as  it 
has  an  application,  it  is  not  mei-ely  because  they  -exist  as 
distinct  sects,  but  because  of  the  existence  of  those  divi- 
sions, or  schisms,  and  angry  contentions,  which  have  a 
direct  tendency  to  alienate  Christians,  whose  hearts  ought 
to  be  "  knit  together  in  low." 

I  still  further  remark,  that  if  the  reader  has  not  access 
to  the  dissertations  of  Dr.  George  C,  yet  he  will  find 
enough  contained  in  the  extract  which  constitutes  Mr. 
C.*s  appendix,  No.  48,  to  satisfy  him,  as  well  of  the  false 
accusations  of  the  various  sects,  made  by  him,  as  of  his 
evident  want  of  candor  in  making,  and  so  loudly  and 
repeatedly  proclaiming  them  in  his  pubhc  harangues. 

Although,  tlierefore,  it  is  admitted,  that  in  so  far  as  the 
fonnation  of  the  diflercnt  sects  into  which  the  Christian 
world  is  nov.'  divided,  has  been  the  effect  of  a  schisma- 
tical  or  heretical  spirit,  indulged  by  any  churches  or  indi- 
viduals, such  churches  or  individuals,  were  certainlv  to 
blame,  using  the  term  heretical,  as  it  is  sometimes 
employed  in  the  New  Testament,  as  nearly  allied  to 
schismatical :  yet  it  is  e\4dent,  that  the  mere  conscien- 
tious adherence,  in  the  spirit  of  candor  and  charity,  to 
any  one  of  these  sects,  as  they  now^  exist,  because  such 
sect  is  believed  to  be  right,  or  at  feast,  nearer  the  truth  in 
doctrine,  discipline,  forms  of  worship  and  church  govern- 
ment, than  any  other:  even  though  tlie  person  thus 
beheving,  and  thus  adhering  to  any  particular  sect,  should 

*  9 


94 


DEBATE  ON 


be  honestly  mistaken,  is  not — cannot  be  criminal  in  the 
sight  of  God.  Hence,  it  is  evident,  it  is  not  the  righte- 
ous, yet  gracious  and  all-powerful  God,  who  remembers 
our  frailties,  and  "  pities  those  who  fear  him,  as  a  father 
pitieth  his  children,"  that  is  denouncing  his  anathemas 
against  his  own  church,  merely  because,  through  their 
weakness  of  spiritual  discernment,  they  cannot,  as  yet, 
see  eye  to  eye;  or  because  through  the  remaining  imperfec- 
tion, and  even  corruption  of  their  nature,  they  have  raised 
up  walls  of  separation  in  the  house  of  God,  so  that  his 
children,  who  ought  indeed  to  be  of  one  heart,  and  of 
one  mind,  and  to  dwell  together  in  love,  live  in  separate 
families,  among  whom,  there  is,  indeed,  oftentimes  too  ht- 
tle  Christian  intercourse  and  afiection.  But  it  is  the 
self-styled  refw^mer  of  Virginia,  who  is  vainly  endeavor- 
ing, in  humble  imitation  of  liim,  who  has  long  opposed 
and  exahed  "  himself  above  all  that  is  called  God,  or 
that  is  worshipped,"  to  wield  the  thunderbolts  of  heaven 
against  these  poor  devoted  heretical  sects  of  reformed 
Christians.  The  conclusion  of  Dr.  George  C.'s  explana- 
tion of  the  words  schism  and  heresy,  (which  conclusion 
it  did  not  suit  the  views  of  Mr.  C.  to  quote,)  fully  accords, 
not  only  with  the  sentiments  just  advanced,  but  with  the 
tenor  of  the  scriptures,  as  well  as  the  dictates  of  reason 
and  common  sense.  "  I  shall  conclude  (says  Dr.  C.) 
with  adding  to  the  observations  on  the  words  schism  and 
heresy,  that  how  much  soever  a  schismatical  or  here- 
tical spirit,  in  the  apostolic  sense  of  the  terms,  may  have 
contributed  to  the  formation  of  the  different  sects  into 
which  the  Christian  world  is  at  present  divided,  no  per- 
son who,  in  the  spirit  of  candor  and  charity,  adheres  to 
that  which,  to  the  best  of  his  judgment,  is  right,  though, 
in  his  opinion,  he  should  be  mistaken,  is,  in  the  scriptural 
sense,  either  a  schismatic  or  heretic ;  and  that  he,  on  the 
contrary,  whatever  sect  he  belong  to,"  (and  I  would  add, 
even  although  he  professes,  as  does  Mr.  C,  to  belong  to 
no  sect,)  "  is  more  entitled  to  these  odious  appellations, 
who  is  most  apt  to  throw  the  imputation  upon  others." 
Let  the  reader,  remember,  that  Dr.  C.  is  the  writer, 


CAMPBELLISM. 


95 


whose  translation  of  the  gospels,  as  well  as  his  intei^re- 
tation  of  the  words  schism  and  heresy,  Mr.  C.  professes 
to  adopt  in  preference  to  all  others,  and  then  let  him  form 
a  deliberate  and  candid  judgment  of  his  denunciations  of 
all  the  sects  of  evangelical  Christians,  (which,  with  all 
tlaeir  imperfections,  it  is  confidently  behoved,  constitute 
the  true  church  of  God,  if  there  exists  any  such  church 
at  this  day  on  the  earth,)  without  any  respect  to  their 
doctrines  or  practice.  In  plain  language,  I  ask,  is  it  not 
evident  that  Mr.  C.  is  one  of  the  "  false  accusers,"  fore- 
told by  the  apostle  to  the  gentiles? 

But  upon  the  supposition,  that  all  the  sects  of  evange- 
Ucal  Christians,  as  well  as  the  individual  churches  of 
which  they  are  composed,  deserved  the  solemn  rebuke 
given  by  Paul  to  the  Corinthian  church,  in  all  its  extent, 
would  this  justify  the  bold  denunciations  of  the  Bishop  of 
Bethany  ?  Did  the  apostle  thus  denounce  the  Corinthian 
church  ?  Did  he  describe  it  as  a  "  Sectarian  Babylon?" 
and  did  he  declare  "  that  the  plagues  of  God  were  threat- 
ened" to  such  as  would  not  come  out  of  this  corrupt 
church,  where  schisms  and  contentions  existed,  where 
one  said,  I  am  of  Paul,  and  I  of  Apollos,  and  another,  I 
am  of  Cephas,  and  another,  (even  as  does  Mr.  C,  and  as 
do  his  followers,)  I  am  of  Christ  ?  Nothing  of  such  de- 
nunciation is  to  be  found  in  the  solemn  rebuke  of  the 
apostle.  He  had  evidently  been  made  to  drink  too 
deeply  into  that  one  Spirit,  of  which  these  w^eak  and 
erring  brethren  of  the  Corinthian  church  had,  notwith- 
standing all  their  faults,  in  some  measure  partaken,  to 
permit  him  thus  to  denounce  any  one  of  the  members  of 
Christ's  mystical  body.  He  therefore  addressed  them 
in  the  spirit  of  meekness,  while  he  plainly  and  faithfully 
pointed  out  to  that  church  wherein  they  had  erred.  In- 
stead of  hurling  against  them  the  thunderbolts  of  heaven, 
as  Mr.  C.  endeavors  to  do,  against  all  the  sects  of  evange- 
Hcal  Christians,  he  addressed  to  them  the  following 
tender  and  affecting,  yet  solemn  exhortation ;  which  we 
learn  from  his  second  letter,  had  the  desired  effect  to 
bring  them  to  the  exercise  of  a  godly  sorrow,  and  pro- 


DEBATE  OxV 


duced  in  them  repentance  unto  salvation.  "  Now  (said 
this  affectionate  apostie)  I  beseech  you,  brethren,  by  the 
name  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  that  ye  all  speak  the  same 
thing,  and  that  there  be  no  divisions  (schisms)  among 
you,  but  that  ye  be  perfectly  joined  together  in  the  same 
mind,  and  in  the  same  judgment." 

With  regard  to  the  charges  of  Mr.  C.  against  the 
several  sects,  contained  in  the  extract  from  his  narra- 
tive, which  yet  remain  to  be  noticed,  I  would  observe, 
that  while  persons,  even  such  as  may  be  congregated 
with  the  outward  forms  of  a  church,  may  to  ail  intents 
and  purposes  be  the  followers  of  a  factionist,  and  fully 

Eartake  of  his  spirit,  without  assuming  his  name,  it  would 
y  no  means  necessarily  follow,  that  such  sect  assumed 
the  name  of  a  factionist.  That  such  is  the  case,  will 
appear  from  the  sentiments  adopted  by  Mr.  C.  himself, 
in  his  App.  No.  48,  to  which  I  have  had  occasion  so  fre- 
quently to  advert.  "  The  word  secU  (according  to  Mr. 
C.'s  adopted  interpretation,)  may  be  used  along  with  the 
proper  name,  purely  by  way  of  distinction  from  another 
party  of  a  different  name,  in  which  case  the  word  is  not 
understood  to  convey  either  praise  or  blame:  of  these  (it 
is  added)  we  have  examples  in  the  phrases  above  quoted, 
the  sect  of  the  Pharisees,  the  sect  of  the  Sadducees,  the 
sect  of  the  Nazarenes.  In  this  way,  we  speak  of  a 
strict  sect,  or  a  lax  sect,  or  even  of  a  good  sect,  or  a 
bad  sect."  Out  of  Mr  C.'s  own  mouth  then,  let  him  be 
judged.  Thus  it  is  that  several  sects  of  evangelical 
Christians  are  called  Calvinists — this  is  not  the  peculiar 
or  distinctive  appellation  assumed  by  any  one  of  them, 
merely  to  distinguish  them  from  such  other  sects,  as  are 
termed  Arminians — but  does  it  follow^  as  a  matter  of 
course,  or  is  it  in  any  sense  a  fact,  that  either  Arminius 
or  Calvin  was  a  factionist  ?  And  if  such  were  ev^en  the 
fact,  does  it  follow  that  these  sects  have  assumed  the 
names  of  one  and  the  other,  or  that  they  are  themselves 
universally  (as  the  allegation  of  Mr.  C.  evidently  imports) 
factionists  ?  Again,  as  Mr.  C.  evidently  in  this  part  of 
his  charge,  alludes  to  the  Corinthian  church,  some  of 


CAMPBELLISM. 


97 


whom  said,  I  am  of  Paul,  &c.  &c.,  does  he  mean  (as  his 
language  clearly  imports)  that  Paul,  and  Appollos,  and 
Cephas,  whose  names  were  thus  assumed,  were  facticni' 
uts  ?  Th^t  sects,  or  as  more  properly,  in  this  instance, 
translated  heresies,  and  which  are  ranked  by  the  apostle 
Paul  among  the  works  of  the  flesh,  have  a  just  application 
to  Mr.  C.  and  his  followers,  and  not  to  the  evangehcal 
sects,  I  shall  endeavor  to  show  hereafter. 

As  to  Mr.  C.'s  assertion,  concerning  the  wars  and 
bloodshed  of  modern  Europe,  as  well  as  concerning  the 
great  majority  of  all  the  envies,  jealousies,  &:c.,  which  he 
makes  to  ha\  e  arisen,  and  siill  to  arise,  j  urely  from  the 
existence  of  sects,  it  is  suflicient  to  say,  that  hs  truth  is 
utterly  denied.  1  cannot,  nor  is  it  necessary  that  I  should, 
here  enter  into  detail;  it  is  sufficient  just  to  demand  of 
Mr.  C.  if  the  necessary  consequence.--  of  tlie  existence  of 
sects  are  war  and  bloodshed,  why  have  not  these  conse- 
quence been  witnessed  ?  Why  are  no-:  iliese  evils  now 
seen  in  our  country?  Where  is  ihe  country  upon  the 
face  of  the  earth,  where  sects  are  not  only  not  so  fully  tole- 
rated, but  where  each  stand  on  so  eqi  al  ground  1  I  am 
aware  that  Mr.  C.  will  reply  by  referr  r.g  to  the  history 
of  the  Puritans,  not  only  of  Old  but  "New  England,  and 
tlie  Blue  Laws  of  Connecticut;"  to  "  the  groans  and 
sighs  of  the  whipped  and  gibbeted  Quakers,  and  Bap- 
tists, &c."  I  shall  not  here  stay  to  male  any  remarks 
upon  the  great  tenderness  and  symj  athy  which  Mr.  C, 
when  it  suits  his  purpose,  can  express  for  those  sects, 
which  he  usually  denounces  as  unwcirihy  of  any  thing, 
but  the  vengeance  of  heaven;  but  jnst  remark,  that  I  can 
hardly  believe  Mr.  C.  so  ignorant  of  the  true  cause  of  the 
wars,  and  fightings,  and  persecutions,  w  hich  have  at  any 
time  existed  in  the  world,  and  even  io  some  limited  extent 
in  our  country,  in  an  early  }^eriod  of  its  history,  (and 
which  must  ever  be  de})l<^red,  and  the  recurrence  of  the 
like,  ever  be  deprecateci  by  all  frond  men.)  as  not  to 
know  that  these  originated,  not  frcm  the  circumstance 
that  the  church  was  divided  into  sects,  but  in  conse- 
quence of  that  dark  cloud  of  ignoi  a  nee  of  the  true  princi- 


98 


DEBATE  Or( 


pies  of  toleration,  which  continued  to  overspread  the 
Christian  world,  notwithstanding  the  dawning  light  of 
the  reformation,  in  connection  with  that  source  of  all 
**  wars  and  fightings,"  mentioned  by  the  apostle  James, 
"  even  the  lusts  which  war  in  the  members."  That  this 
was  the  true  cause,  is  evident  from  the  undeniable  fact, 
that  wherever,  and  so  soon  as  these  principles  were 
understood,  there  persecution  has,  as  it  regards  the  sects 
of  evangelical  Christians,  ceased;  and  it  is  hoped,  ceased 
forever.  So  remarkable  is  this  fact,  that  we  may  fear- 
lessly challenge  Mr.  C,  and  all  the  host  of  such  as  hate 
and  vilify  the  various  sects  alx)ve  mentioned,  to  point 
out  a  single  instance,  as  existing  in  the  present,  or  as 
having  existed  in  the  last  generation,  where  any  sect  or 
church  of  evangelical  Christians  have  had  any  hand, 
directly,  or  indirectly,  in  promoting,  aiding,  or  giving 
countenance  to  any  religious  persecution.  Whilst  on 
the  other  hand,  it  is  a  fact,  that  thei/  have  ever  continued 
to  be  persecuted,  to  a  greater  or  less  extent,  not  only  by 
Roman  Catholic  influence  and  power,  but  even,  (aiid 
especially  in  Switzerland,  as  is  the  case  at  present,  in 
no  small  degree)  by  Protestants — such  as  assume  to  be 
liberal  Christians,  whose  views,  in  many  respects,  sym- 
bolize with  those  of  Mr.  C,  and  who  manifest  their 
burning  zeal,  not  only  in  the  abuse  of  the  evangelical 
sects,  as  he  does,  but  having  the  strong  arm  of  power 
on  their  side  in  their  persecution,  by  fines,  imprisonment, 
and  exile. 

With  a  view,  as  it  would  seem,  in  some  measure  to 
qualify  his  sweeping  denunciations  of  the  various  sects  of 
evangelical  Christians,  as  well  as  to  increase  the  preju- 
dice which  he  would  especially  excite  against  all  such  as 
exercise  the  office  of  the  ministry  of  the  gospel  among 
them,  Mr.  C.  tells  in  his  narrative,  that  in  the  debate,  he 
admitted  a  difference  between  those  who  are  leaders, 
and  those  who  are  led."  "  The  leaders  (he  adds)  were 
shown  to  be  factionists,  and  the  led,  frequently,  without 
suspecting,  their  aiders  and  abettors."  And  yet  the  three 
translators  of  the  various  books  of  the  New  Testament, 


CAMPBELLISM. 


99 


upon  whose  authority  he  professes  chiefly  to  have  relied 
in  preparing  a  version  of  that  part  of  the  Sacred  Oracles 
which  he  would  fain  have  the  whole  church  and  the 
world  receive  as  the  standard  of  truth,  were  leaders 
among  these  hated  sects.  Such  is  the  consistency  of  Mr. 
C.  And  in  reply  to  some  observations  of  mine,  which 
were  designed  to  show  that  the  writings  and  commenta- 
ry of  one  of  his  translators,  Dr.  Macknight,  (who,  al- 
though a  learned,  was  not  considered  a  spiritual  man,) 
were  not  held  in  high  esteem  even  by  the  sect  to  which 
he  belonged,  Mr.  C.  declared,  with  much  emphasis,  he 
would  stand  up  for  Dr.  Macknight."  Upon  his  being 
reminded,  however,  that  he  had  already  denounced 
against  him  in  common  with  many  others,  the  vengeance 
of  heaven,  he  had  too  much  prudence  to  attempt  even  to 
palliate  his  inconsistency,  which  was  too  palpable  not  to 
be  generally  observed. 

In  connection  with  this  part  of  the  subject,  Mr.  C.  fur- 
ther states  in  his  narrative,  that  with  a  view  "  to  show 
that  differences  of  opinion  might  exist  amongst  Christians, 
while  they  are  one  body  and  one  faith,"  he  urged  the 
admonition  of  Paul  to  tlie  Romans  to  "  receive  one  ano- 
ther without  regard  to  differences  of  opinion^  If  Mr.  C. 
intends  to  apply  these  "  differences  of  opinioTi/^  to  things, 
in  their  nature  indifferenty  unimportant,  or  of  doubtful 
import,  his  position  will  not  be  denied  by  any  of  the  sects 
against  the  propriety  of  whose  existence,  as  such,  it  is 
intended  as  argument.  It  indeed  implies  a  principle, 
which  is  practically  recognized  in  a  greater  or  less  de- 
gree by  them  all.  But  in  what  part  of  the  epistle  to  the 
Romans  does  Mr.  C.  find  the  alleged  precept,  "  receive 
one  another  without  regard  to  differences  of  ojrinion,^^  which 
phrase,  he  would  have  his  readers  to  believe  is  literally 
quoted?  In  vain  will  it  be  sought,  and  the  circumstance 
shows  the  liberty  which  Mr.  C.  feels  himself  warranted 
to  take  with  the  word  of  God.  It  will  be  at  once  acknow- 
ledged, by  all  who  have  any  just  reverence  for  the  au- 
thority of  the  oracles  of  God,  that  when  a  writer  under- 
takes to  quote  from  these  sacred  writings,  it  ought  to  be 


100 


DEBATE  OX 


done  with  accuracy  and  truth.  But  the  above  quotation 
is  not  literal,  even  according  to  the  version  which  he 
himself  has  put  forth.  The  passage,  which  it  is  presumed 
he  intended  should  be  considered  as  having  been  literally 
quoted,  has  been  so  altered  as,  at  least,  to  obscure  tlie 
apostle's  meaning,  and  apparently  to  render  the  precept 
subservient  to  iiis  views.  The  passage  alluded  to,  is  be- 
heved  to  be  Rom.  14:1,  which  I  do  not  hesitate  to  affirm 
to  be  (if  not  perlectly,  yet)  far  more  truly  translated  in 
our  standard  version  of  the  New  TcvStament,  than  in  the 
patched  version  of  Mr.  C.  "  Him  that  is  weak  in  the  faith 
receive  ye,  hut  not  to  doubtful  disputations.'^  The  apostle 
here  evidently  intended  to  exhort  "  the  pastors  and  mem- 
bers of  the  church  at  Rome,  to  receive  among  them,  as  a 
brother,  the  weak  believer;  and  not  to  pei'plex  him  with 
disputations  about  such  things  as  might  appear  doubtful 
to  conscientious  persons,  but  to  leave  him  under  the  gen- 
eral use  of  means  and  loving  instructions,  to  grow^  stonger 
in  faith  and  riper  in  judgment,  by  the  inward  teaching  of 
the  Holy  Spirit."  And  in  so  doing,  the  apostle  gave  a 
general  rule  of  vast  importance  to  the  peace  and  unity  of 
the  church  of  God,  as  it  regards  doctrine,  and  worship, 
and  practice.  But  it  is  also  evident,  from  the  apostle's 
own  exemplification  of  the  rule,  as  contained  in  this  chap- 
ter, it  only  applies  to  things  in  their  nature  indifferent,  or 
of  doubtful  import,  about  which,  there  may  be,  as  there 
often  is,  an  honest  and  conscientious  difference  of  opinion. 
Such  was  the  distinction  of  meats  and  dai/s  spoken  of  by 
the  apostle. 

The  reader  cannot  fail  to  notice  the  important  differ- 
ence between  this,  which  is  confidently  asserted  to  be  the 
true  meaning  of  the  apostle,  and  those  unqualified,  or  un- 
limited "  differences  of  opinion,^'  which  are  substituted  for 
"  doubtful  disputations,"  which  substitution  or  aUeration 
is  unwaiTanted  by  the  original. 

This  alteration,  however,  of  the  sacred  text,  fully  ac- 
cords with  the  views  of  Mr.  C,  as  it  regards  the  most 
important  doctrines  of  the  gospel,  which  he  holds  to  be 
no  part  of  "  the  faith  once  delivered  to  the  saints."  And 


CAMPBELLISM. 


101 


while  on  the  one  hand,  I  would  contend  that  all  such 
persons  as  Mr.  C,  as  well  as  such  of  his  followers,  as 
*'  do  not  profess  repentance,  and  a  believing  dependence,** 
as  lost  sinners,  on  the  merits  and  atonement  of  Christ, 
*^God  manifest  in  the  flesh,^'  and  a  reliance  on  the  Holy 
Spirit  for  teaching  and  sanctification,  cannot  properly  be 
regarded  as  believers,  or  as  being  "in  the  faith"  at  all,  or 
admitted  into  the  communion  of  saints.  On  the  other 
hand,  I  give  it  franhly^  as  my  own  opinion,  that  had  the 
general  rule,  given  by  the  apostle  in  this  part  of  his 
epistle  to  the  Romans,  been  at  all  times  fully  understood, 
and  duly  regarded  by  the  church  of  God,  it  would  not 
have  been  divided  into  such  numerous  sects  as  it  is  now.* 
It  is  true,  as  Mr.  C.  complains,  or  at  least  alleges, 
that  I  charged  him  wath  being  "  a  factionist,"  and  whilst 
I  admit  **  the  identity  between  the  factionist,  and  the 
heretic  whom.  Paul  denounces,"  to  which  he  tells  us  he 
alluded  in  the  course  of  his  remarks  during  the  debate, 
I  contend,  and  shall  endeavor  to  prove,  that  the  true 
definition  of  these  terms  is  justly  descriptive  of  his  char- 
acter and  conduct,  ever  since  he  assumed  the  office  of  a 
public  teacher,  declaimer,  or  proclaimer.  "  A  man  that 
\s  a  heretic,"  says  the  apostle  in  his  epistle  to  Titus, 
(3:10,11.)  "  after  the  first  and  second  admonition,  reject, 
knowing  that  he  that  is  such,  is  subverted  and  sinneth, 
being  condemned  of  himself."  Let  us  now  see  what  is 
the  interpretation  of  this  passage,  as  given  by  Dr.  George 
C.,  which  the  Bishop  of  Bethany  adopts  in  preference  to 
all  others.  It  is  plain  (says  this  writer)  from  the  char- 
acter here  given,  as  well  as  from  the  genius  of  the  lan- 
guage, that  the  word  airetikos,  in  this  place,  does  not 
mean  a  member  of  an  airesis,  or  sect,  who  may  be 
unconscious  of  any  fault,  and  so  is  not  equivalent  to  our 
word  sectary;  much  less  does  it  answer  to  the  English 
word  heretic,  which  always  implies  one  who  eiitertains 
opinions  in  religion,  not  only  erroneous,  but  pernicious  ; 
whereas  (he  adds)  we  have  shown  that  the  word  airesis, 

*  See  Prelim.  Disc.  108. 
10 


102 


I>KBATE  ON 


in  scriptural  use,  has  no  necessary  connection  with 
opinion  at  all.  Its  immediate  connection  is  with  division, 
or  dissention,  as  it  is  thereby  sects  and  parties  are  form- 
ed. AiRETiKos  ANTHROPos  (the  hcrctical  man)  must 
therefore  mean  one  who  is  the  founder  of  a  sect,  or  at 
least  has  the  disposition  to  create  aireseis,  or  sects,  in  the 
community,  and  may  properly  be  rendered  a  factious 
man,''  The  same  writer  adds,  "  The  admonition  here 
given  to  Titus,  is  the  same,  though  differently  expressed, 
with  what  he  had  given  to  the  Romans,"  (16:17,)  to 
which,  in  the  debate,  I  alluded  as  applicable,  according 
to  my  judgment,  to  Mr.  C.  in  its  fullest  extent.  "Now, 
I  beseech  you,  brethren,  (said  the  apostle,)  mark  them 
which  cause  divisions  and  offences,  contrary  to  the  doc- 
tnna  which  ye  have  learned ;  and  avoid  them,  for  they 
tiiat  are  such,  serve  not  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  but  their 
own  belly;  and  by  good  words  B,ndfair  speeches  deceive 
the  hearts  of  the  simple.'* 

According  to  the  same  authority,  it  is  in  a  sense  simi- 
lar to  that  of  the  word  heretic,  we  are  to  understand  the 
heresies  spoken  of  by  the  apostle  in  his  epistle  to  the 
Galatians,  (5:20.)  which  he  ranks  among  the  wori^s  of 
the  flesh — as  also  the  hei^esies  of  which  the  apostle  speaks 
in  his  first  epistle  to  the  Corinthians.  (11:19.)  Both  of 
which  passages  I  conceive  to  be  much  more  justly  appli- 
cable to  Mr.  C,  than  to  any  member  or  public  teacher 
of  any  of  the  existing  sects  of  evangelical  Christians.  If 
therefore  I  alluded  to  the  passage  in  the  epistle  to  the 
Romans,  in  the  course  of  the  debate,  (but  whether  I  did 
or  did  not,  I  cannot  certainly  recollect,)  it  was  not  by 
way  of  apology  for  any  of  the  existing  sects  of  evangeli- 
cal Christians,  but  with  a  Anew  to  show  the  continued 
fulfilment  of  the  apostle's  prediction,  in  the  case  of  Mr. 

and  the  divisions  caused  by  him  in  the  church  of 
God,  when  the  apostle  declared,  "There  must  be  also 
heresies  among  you,  that  they  wliich  are  approved  may 
be  ^lade  manifest  among  you."  That  I  ever  used,  or 
alluded  to  this  declaration  of  the  apostle,  in  the  course 


CAMPBELLISMo 


of  the  debate,  according  to  the  representation  of  Mr.  C% 
is  utterly  denied. 

Now  that  the  word  heretic,  or  factionist,  does  not 
mean,  in  a  scriptural  sense,  a  member  of  a  sect  who  may 
be  unconscious  of  any  fault,  nay,  who  may  be  such  from 
a  deep  conviction  of  duty,  as  well  as  a  grateful  sense  of 
the  privilege  of  being  thus  <ionnected  with  the  church  of 
God,  I  have  endeavored  to  show^,  not  only  from  a  just 
view  of  the  word  of  God,  but  from  the  authority  of  a  dis- 
tinguished writer,  approved  of  by  Mr.  C.  himself ;  and 
on  the  other  hand,  that  these  words,  heretic  or  factimisU 
are  justly  applicable  to  Mr,  C,  I  contend  is  abundantly 
evident  from  the  numerous  and  very  injurious  divisions, 
or  schisms,  which  he,  as  well  by  his  public  harangues* 
as  by  his  writings,  has  caused  among  the  churches  in 
the  Baptist  connection.  That  these  numerous  churches  of 
regular  Baptists  in  these  United  States,  were  generally,  at 
least,  "  endeavoring  to  keep  the  unity  of  the  Spirit  in  the 
bond  of  peace,"  and  were  for  the  most  part,  "walking  in 
the  comfort  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  were  edified,"  by 
sound  doctrine,"  through  the  labors  and  preaching  of 
faithful  ministers  of  the  New  Testament,  until  the  unau- 
spicious  hour  when  Mr.  C.  (who  has  been  many  things 
by  turn,  and  nothing  long,)  was  admitted  among  them, 
are  facts  of  general  notoriety  that  need  no  proof  Equal- 
ly so  are  the  facts,  that  in  many,  if  not  almost  all  the 
Baptist  churches  which  have  been  afflicted  by  the  visits 
of  Mr.  C.,  or  the  circulation  of  his  books  and  pamphlets, 
there,  instead  of  the  members  being  "  perfectly  joined  in 
the  same  mind  and  in  the  same  judgment,"  are  found 
contentions,  heart  burnings,  divisions;  and  in  many  cases 
these  churches  have  been  rent  in  pieces,  and  their  unity 
destroyed.  That  such  divisions  exist  among  the  Baptists, 
Mr.  C.  himself  admits.  That  he,  or  his  pretended  refor- 
mation, has  been  the  immediate  cause  of  them,  cannot  be 
doubted;  and  indeed,  I  do  not  know  that  he  has  ever 
denied  it. 

Now  let  us  see  whether  Mr.  C.  can  possibly  have  any 
plausible,  much  less  adequate  excuse,  for  causing  such 


104 


DEBATE  our 


numerous,  distressing,  and  injurious  divisions  in  a  branch 
of  the  church  of  God,  into  which  he  had  unsohcited 
sought,  and  found  admission.  Was  it  because  he  had 
discovered  that  the  regular  Baptists  held,  or  inculcated 
some  false  doctrine  that  was  of  dangerous  tendency,  or 
destructive  to  the  souls  of  men?  If  such  had  been  the 
case,  or  if  he  had  even  sincerel\'  believed  that  such  w'as 
the  fact,  though  in  this  he  had  been  mistaken,  it  would 
have  gone  far  to  excuse  his  conduct.  But  he  himself 
gives  us  to  understand,  that  doctrines,  in  his  view,  are 
of  no  importance ; — that  fact&,  and  not  doctrines,  are 
the  proper  objects  or  constituent  parts  of  the  faith  once 
delivered  to  the  saints.  It  will  not,  I  presume,  be  said 
that  any  difference,  at  least  such  as  is  at  all  material,  exists 
between  him  and  the  regular  Baptists  concerning  the 
facts  recorded  in  the  scripture  history.  Nor  will  it  be 
contended  by  Mr.  C,  that  the  members  of  the  regular 
Baptist  churches,  generally,  do  not  maintain  a  walk  and 
conversation,  such  as  becomes  the  gospel  of  Christ,  at 
least  to  a  degree  that  will  bear  a  comparison  with  such 
as  have  embraced  his  pretended  reformation. 

If  therefore  nothing  w^as  to  be  gained,  and  no  change 
for  the  better  has  been  effected  by  this  reformation,, 
either  as  it  regards  doctrine  or  practice,  why  did  he 
introduce  it  ?  Why  alienate  hearts  and  affections  of  so 
many  who  professed_to  have  put  on  the  bond  of  perfect- 
ness?  Will  Mr.  C.  plead  the  great  differences  of  opinion^ 
which  exist  between  himself  and  the  regular  Baptists? 
I  ask  why,  according  to  his  own  principles,  he  did  not 
hold  his  own  opinions  "<25  private  property"  and  not 
promulgate  them,  and  thereby  disturb  the  peace  of  the 
churches.  According  to  his  own  showing,  the  regular 
Baptists  hold  all  that  he  contends  is  essential  to  salvation, 
though  true  it  is  also,  they  hold  more.  Thus  they  histo* 
rically  believe  the  facts  contained,  not  only  in  the  New, 
but  the  Old  Testament  also;  although  they  in  common 
with  other  evangelical  sects,  reject  the  doctrine  that  this 
species  of  belief  is  the  same  with  that  which  is  to  the 
saving  of  the  soul.    They  maintain  that  the  latter  con- 


CASa*BELLlSa. 


105 


«lsts  in  a  gracious  exercise  of  the  heart,  which  is  pro- 
ductive of,  and  evinced  by  good  works,  and  a  blameless 
life  indicative  of  a  pure  heart 

They  also,  as  well  as  Mr,  C,  administer  and  receive 
baptism  by  immersion;  though  they  do  not  believe  that 
this  is  the  means,  much  less  the  only  means,  of  obtaining 
the  forgiveness  of  transgression,  or  of  washing  away  sin. 
But  then,  if  in  this  they  are  even  mistaken,  it  can  be  de- 
monstrated from  the  conduct  of  Mr.  C,  that  he  himself 
does  not  esteem  it  necessary  that  a  person  should  thus 
expect  the  remission  of  his  sins  through  immersion,  at 
the  time  he  is  immersed,  in  order  to  obtain  that  great 
blessing.  Why,  then,  I  repeat,  did  he  trouble  these 
churches,  as  did  some  the  church  at  Galatia,  if  it  were 
not  with  a  view  to  create  a  faction  or  schism?  And  in 
so  doing,  was  his  object  to  serve  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ, 
or  his  own  interests'?  It  is  thought  that  all  who  take 
a  candid  view  of  the  case,  will  answer  it  was — it  must 
have  been  the  latter.  Had  it  been  the  former,  inasmuch 
as  he  lays  no  stress  upon  the  belief  of  doctrines,  and 
inasmuch  as  these  churches  do  practise  immersion, 
(which  he  holds  to  be  indispensably  necessary  for  the 
remission  of  sins,)  he  would  have  regarded  the  differences 
of  opinion  between  the  regular  Baptists  and  himself,  as 
did  the  apostle  (Rom.  14.)  the  distinction  of  meats  and 
days,  and  would  have  exercised  at  least  a  measure  of  tiie 
same  lorl:)earance,  as  did  Paul  And  while  he  held  his 
peculiar  views,  "  as  private  property,^''  he  woiild  not  have 
distuibed  the  peace  and  harmony  of  those  churches,  by 
obtruding  them  upon  their  attention  in  the  way  he  has 
done. 

If  Mr.  C.  should  reply,  why  not  require  that  those 
churches  should  exercise  the  same  forbearance  towards 
him,  that  is  considered  to  have  been  reasonably  expected 
on  his  part?  I  reply  that  these,  in  common  with  other  evan- 
gelical Christians,  do  not  profess  to  believe,  as  he  does,  that 
facts,  and  not  doctrines,  are  the  proper  objects  of  faith. 
Whether  they  be  mistaken  or  not,  they  believe  that  itis 
-al^importanl  to  the  peace  and  purity  of  any  Christian 

*10 


106 


DEBATE  .ON 


church — to  the  success  of  the  gospel  among  them,  in  the 
sound  conversion  of  sinners  unto  God — to  the  com- 
fort and  edification  of  saints,  as  well  as  their  growth  in 
grace,  and  in  the  knowledge  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ, 
that  such  church,  according  to  the  precept  of  an  apostle, 
not  only  to  "  hold  fast  the  form  of  sound  words,"  but 
that  they  also  from  the  heart,  obey  and  feed  upon  that 
form  of  sound  doctrine  which  is  according  to  godhness, 
and  through  the  instrumentality  of  which,  they  believe 
true  godliness  or  sanctifi cation  to  be  promoted  in  the 
souls  of  all  who  truly  "  believe  with  the  heart  unto  righte- 
ousness." They  therefore  cannot  but  view  Mr.  C,  not 
only  as  a  man  w^ho  has  made  divisions  among  them  ; 
4^^but  as  one  of  those  false  teachers  foretold  by  the  apostle 
Peter.  (2  Pet.  2:1.)  As  there  were  false  prophets  among 
the  people  of  old,  so  the  apostle  w^arns  the  church, 
"  There  shall  be  false  teachers  among  you,  who  privily 
shall  bring  in  damnable  heresies,  even  denying  the  Lord 
that  bought  them,  and  bring  upon  themselves  swift  de- 
struction." They  therefore  consider,  that  they  are 
troubled  as  was  the  Galatian  church,  by  one  who  per- 
verts the  gospel  of  Christ.  As  therefore  they  conscientious- 
ly believe,  that  the  object  of  Mr.  Campbell  is  to  remove 
them  from  him  that  called  them  "  into  the  grace  of  Christ 
unto  another  gospel,"  they  cannot  receive  him  as  one 
"  that  abideth  in  the  doctrine  of  Christ,"  "  neither  bid 
him  God  speed,"  lest  they  be  partakers  "  of  his  evil 
deeds." 

Moreover,  if  the  object  of  Mr.  C.  was  not  to  create  a 
faction  or  schism  in  the  Baptist  church,  and  that  with  a 
view  to  promote,  in  some  w^ay,  his  ow^n  personal  interest, 
and  eventually  to  raise  up  a  sect;  I  ask  why  did  he  con- 
nect himself  at  all  with  this  Christian  community?  Mr. 
C.  will  not  (because  it  is  presumed  he  dare  not)  deny, 
that  for  several  years,  or  at  least  from  the  time  he  began 
to  hold  forth  by  way  of  public  harangues,  until  the  time 
he  joined  the  Baptist  church,  the  great  burden  of  his  pro- 
tended testimony  was  to  declaim  against  these  hated 
sects;  as  well  as  the  creeds  or  confessions  of  faith  which 


CAMPBELLISM. 


107 


had  been  adopted,  and  are  still  held  by  the  most  of  them; 
and  to  urge  the  propriety  or  necessity  of  casting  all  these 
things  to  the  moles  and  the  bats,  and  of  all  of  every  sect 
uniting  in  one  Christian  community,  with  no  other  creed 
than  the  bible. 

Why  then,  I  repeat,  (if  it  were  not  for  the  purpose  of 
causing  a  faction,  or  division  among  the  members,)  did 
he  unite  himself  with  one  of  these  sects,  against  which 
he  had  so  long  declaimed  ?  In  so  doing,  did  not  his  vol- 
untary act,  at  least  impliedly,  amount  to  a  profession, 
not  only  that  he  had  changed  his  views  in  relation  to 
sects  and  religious  creeds,  but  that  he  also  adopted  the 
creed  of  that  particular  sect  as  his  own?  And  such,  it 
seems  would,  nay  must  have  been  the  case,  if  in  uniting 
with  this  sect,  he  had  acted  with  good  faith,  or  from 
principles  consistent  with  candor. 

It  is  moreover  true,  that  in  the  debate  I  charged  Mr. 
C.  (though  he  has  not  in  his  narrative  thought  proper  to 
notice  it.)  with  being  himself  a  sectarian,  a  rank  secta- 
rian; or  in  other  words,  with  indulging  a  sectarian 
spirit  to  an  extent  almost,  if  not  quite,  unknown  among 
the  various  denominations  of  evanglical  Christians,  and 
such  as  is  condemned  by  most  of  them.  For  while  they 
are  of  opinion,  that  it  is  right  and  proper,  that  every 
Christian  should  unite  with  the  church  of  God,  by  con- 
necting himself  with  that  particular  sect,  which,  after 
careful  examination,  he  believes  comes  nearest  to  the 
truth;  yet,  as  they  know  and  acknowledge  themselves  to 
be  fallible,  they  will,  so  far  as  they  act  upon  the  princi- 
ples of  the  gospel,  be  careful  to  avcHd  the  spirit  indulged 
by  Mr.  C,  which  leads  him  to  condemn  the  whole  Pro- 
testant church  as  a  sectarian  Babylon;  and  they  w^illingly 
leave  his  Holiness  and  Mr.  C.  to  contend  their  respective 
claims  to  infallibility.  I  do  not  therefore  deem  it  at  all 
necessary,  that  a  man  should  professedly  belong  to  some 
Christian  sect,  before  he  can  justly  be  termed  a  sectarian, 
according  to  the  common  acceptation  of  that  word.  On 
the  contrary,  it  is  evident,  that  a  man  may  belong  to  a  re- 
ligious sect,  and  yet  manifest  and  maintain  a  truly 


109 


DEBATE  015 


,  Catholic  or  Christian  spirit;  on  the  other  hand,  he  may 
renounce  every  Christian  sect,  as  does  Mr.  C,  and  yet 
indulge  that  hateful  and  injurious  spirit  of  sectarism, 
which  leads  him,  as  it  does  the  Bishop  of  Bethany  and 
the  Bishop  of  Rome,  to  contend  that  he,  and  he  only, 
and  those  who  think  and  act  with  him,  are  right,  while  all 
others  of  every  name  are  wrong,  and  to  be  viewed  as 
deceivers  or  deceived.  That  such  is  the  spirit  indulged 
by  Mr.  C.  upon  all  occasions,  needs  no  proof.  Yet  he 
complained  loudly  that  I  should  charge  him  with  being 
a  sectarian,  when  he  was  opposed  to  all  sects.  He 
moreover  considered  the  charge  uncourteous,  as  it 
seemed  to  imply  a  doubt  of  his  veracity,  when  he  pub- 
licly declared  he  was  no  sectarian.  It  was  replied,  that 
the  loud  complaint  of  Mr.  C.  reminded  me  of  an  anec- 
dote, related  by  Dr.  Isaac  Watts  in  his  writings,  of  a 
certain  learned  divine  in  England,  who  gravely  published 
to  the  world,  that  notwithstanding  he  had  descended  in 
common  with  the  rest  of  mankind  from  fallen  Adam, 
and  had  consequently  inherited  much  of  the  imperfection 
and  corruption  of  human  nature,  yet  he  could  with  truth 
say,  that  he  was  entirely  free  from  that  odious  sin  of 
pride.  Methinks,  (adds  Dr.  W.)  this  man  did  not  dwell 
much  at  home."  Thus  it  is  alleged  that  if  Mr.  C. 
dwelt  much  at  home,  and  was  more  intimately  acquaint- 
ed with  his  own  heart,  he  would  be  sensible,  as  is  every 
truly  humble  and  good  Christian,  of  a  corrupt  disposition  of 
his  nature  to  indulge  a  spirit  of  sectarianism,  as  well  as  a 
spirit  ofpride,  to  which  it  is  nearly  allied,  and  would  conse- 
quently be  led  to  watch,  and  to  contend  against  it,  and 
especially  by  cultivating  a  charitable  frame  of  spirit 
towards  all  others  of  every  name,  so  far  as  the  same  is 
not  forbidden  by  the  plain  precepts  of  the  gospel. 

It  is  also  true,  as  Mr.  C.  states,  that  I  was  bold  and 
presumptuous  enough  even  to  charge  him  with  "  being 
the  head  of  a  party."  And  does  not  the  whole  commu- 
nity know  this  to  be  true?  Nor  indeed  do  I  consider  this 
aE,  This  party  has  at  least  l^egun  to  assume  the  fonn 
of  a  sect,  or  ecclesiastical  body,  and  though  with  affected 


CAMPBELLISM. 


109 


humility  they  call  themselves  Christians,  (as  do  the  Arians> 
in  most  places,  who  are  the  followers  of  Mr.  Stone,)  in 
order  to  repel  the  charge  of  being  a  sect,  they  are  usually 
designated  by  the  public  at  large  as  Campbellites.  Thus 
I  consider  Mr.  C.  as  standing  at  the  head  of  a  sect,  and 
as  having  accomplished,  through  his  union  with  the  Bap- 
tist churches  and  the  imposition  which  I  consider  he 
practised  upon  them,  the  object  which  he  had  in  view 
from  his  first  appearance  as  a  public  teacher,  and  which 
there  is  good  reason  to  believe,  he  never  could  have  ac- 
complished by  any  other  means  in  his  powder  to  employ. 
It  is  true  that  Mr.  C.  endeavors  in  his  narrative  to  shield 
himself  and  his  followers  from  the  charge  of  being  secta^ 
rians,  by  the  allegation  that  they  "exclude  from  the 
idngdom  of  Jesus  only  those  who  will  not  acknowledge 
him  to  be  Lord,  by  doing  the  things  which  he  command- 
ed." That  they  make  their  own  opinions  private  property y 
and  require  "  no  person,  on  pain  of  excommunication,  to 
adopt  them."  The  plain  meaning  of  all  which  is,  that  the 
leading  doctrines  of  the  gospel,  which  have  ever  been  all- 
important  in  the  reformed  churches,  these  pretended 
reformers  disregard,  or  do  not  receive.  In  the  place  of 
them,  they  have  substituted  a  set  of  notions,  which,  how- 
ever, they  hold  as  private  property.  But  all  who  do  not 
hold  that  historic  faith  is  the  only  faith  of  the  gospel,  and  do 
not  evince  the  sincerity  of  this  faith,  by  being  immersed, 
they  exclude  from  the  kingdom  of  Jesus.  But  I  ask, 
whether,  in  defining  the  things  which  they  allege  Christ 
commanded  to  be  done,  they  have  not,  as  w^ell  as  other 
sects,  formed  a  creed?  And  does  not  that  creed  contain 
article  or  articles,  that  are  not  held  by  some  other  religious 
sects?  Can  it  moreover  materially  affect  the  case,  or 
change  the  nature  of  the  thing,  whether  the  creed  be 
written  or  unwritten,  long  or  short,  consisting  of  one 
article  or  of  twenty,  or  one  hundred  articles?  If  so, 
then  the  unwritten  laws  of  England,  as  well  as  of  our  own 
country,  which  have  long  been  recognized  in  courts  of 
justice,  have  no  existence;  and  such  acts  of  Congress  as 
consist  of  but  one  section,  have  no  force. 


no 


DEBATE  OJT 


Mr.  C,  in  his  narrative,  alleges  that  "  MrJennings  next 
attempted  to  sustain  his  pretensions  to  being  one  of  God's 
called  and  sent  ministers,  by  urging  the  necessity  of  a 
special  call  and  alleging  that  the  apostles  taught  the  neces- 
sity of  both  '  the  call  to  preach^^  and  ordination  to  qualify 
for  administering  ordinances."    The  reader  of  Mr.  C.'s 
narrative  would,  from  what  I  have  thus  quoted,  be  led  to 
suppose  that  my  observations  upon  the  subjects  of  a  call 
and  ordination  to  the  ministry,  were  made  in  special,  if 
not  exclusive  reference  to  myself    Such,  however,  was 
not  the /act    I  trust,  that  in  exchanging  a  lucrative  pro- 
fession for  the  sacred  office  of  the  ministry  of  the  gospel, 
I  furnished  evidence  of  sincerity  and  disinterestedness, 
(whether  I  be  one  of  God's  called  and  sent  servants  or 
not,)  at  least  as  strong  as  any  that  Mr.  C.  has  ever  given 
of  his  sincerity  and  disinterestedness,  in  vilifying  those 
who  believe  that  God  has  called  or  inclined  them  to  the 
work  of  the  ministry.    My  observations,  therefore,  on 
these  subjects,  were  not  prompted  by  any  sohcitude  in 
relation  to  my  own  pretensions.    As,  however,  it  had 
evidently  been  one  object  of  Mr.  C,  in  some  of  the  public 
harangues  which  he  had  previously  delivered  in  Nash- 
ville, to  bring  the  ministry  of  the  gospel  into  disrepute,  if 
not  contempt,  by  asserting,  or  endeavoring  to  show,  that 
the  office  of  a  minister  of  the  gospel,  as  w^ell  as  the  or- 
dination to  that  office,  were  of  mere  human  device;  I 
thought  the  interests  of  truth  and  religion  required  me  on 
that  occasion,  briejly  to  notice  the  subject,  which  was  con- 
sidered important,  especially  when  it  is  considered  that 
by  (what  Mr.  C,  in  common  with  many  enemies  of  the 
truth  as  it  is  in  Jesus,  esteems)  "  the  foolishness  of  preach- 
ing, it  pleased  God  to  save  those  that  believe."    I  had 
before  given  Mr.  C.,  as  well  as  the  audience,  distinctly  to 
understand,  that  in  pursuance  of  the  invitation  (or  chal- 
lenge) given,  I  had  appeared  to  object  to  his  principles, 
or  to  what  he  had  publicly  advanced;  and  that  in  so  do- 
ing, it  was  my  fixed  determination  not  to  discuss  with 
him  any  point  w^hatever,  that  merely  constituted  a  differ- 
ence of  opinion  or  practice,  (in  relation  to  the  external 


CAMPBELLISM. 


order  or  discipline  of  the  church,)  among  the  various 
sects  of'  evangelical  Christians  whom  I  regarded  as 
members  of  the  same  family.  That  these  family  differ- 
ences had  better  not  be  agitated,  but  suffered  to  sleep» 
as  far  as  possible;  and  where  that  cannot  be,  they  had 
much  better  be  adjusted  in  some  way  among  them- 
selves, than  by  referring  them  to,  or  discussing  them 
with,  such  men  as  Mr.  C,  who,  whatever  might  be 
his  views  or  decision,  I  consider  to  be  equally  the  enemy 
of  all  the  members  of  God's  family  as  he  is  of  his  truth. 
My  observations,  therefore,  were  confined  to  the  call,  or 
that  inclination  of  the  heart,  to  the  work  of  the  ministry, 
as  well  as  that  setting  apart,  or  ordination  to  the  sacred 
office,  both  of  which  are  believed  to  be  of  God,  whilst  I 
purposely  avoided  the  long  disputed  questions  concerning 
"  uninterrupted  succession"  as  well  as  that  which  relates 
to  the  particular  manner  in  which  and  the  persons  by 
whom  such  ordination  ought  to  be  performed.  My  object 
was,  to  show  from  the  word,  that  the  office  of  a  minister 
of  the  gospel,  whether  he  be  an  evangelist,  pastor,  or 
teacher^  is  of  God's  appointment;  that  such  as  assume,  or 
enter  upon  it  in  a  right  manner,  are  called  or  have  their 
hearts  inclined  by  Him  to  the  work;  and  that  it  is  his  re^ 
vealed  will,  that  such  as  furnish  good  grounds  to  conclude 
that  they  are  thus  called,  should  be  solemnly  set  apart  by 
ordination  or  the  imposition  of  hands.  Notwithstanding 
my  previous  declaration  concerning  the  course  I  intend- 
ed to  pursue,  Mr.  C.  endeavored  to  draw  me  into  the  dis* 
cussion  of  these  disputed  questions,  but  did  not  succeed. 
Hence  he  speaks  of  propositions  that  I  would  not  discuss. 

It  is  true,  that  I  principally  relied  upon  the  fourth  chap- 
ter of  Ephesians,  to  prove  that  the  ministry  of  peace  and 
reconciliation  was  the  gift  of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  to  his 
church,  when  he  ascended  to  the  right  hand  of  God. 
While  it  was  admitted  that  the  extraordinary  officers 
therein  mentioned,  such  as  apostles,  &c.,  were  designed  to 
be  of  temporary  duration,  it  was  contended  to  be  equally 
clear,  that  other  officers,  such  as  pastors  and  teachers, 
were  designed  to  be  as  perpetual  as  the  church  in  its 


lift 


DEBATE  0!r 


militant  state.    The  same  position  is  fully  supported  by 
the  apostle,  in  his  first  espistle  to  the  Corinthians,  (chap- 
ter 12:27 — 22.)    Mr.  C.  has  not  thought  proper  to  inform 
us  in  his  narrative,  how  he  attempted  to  evade  the  force 
of  these  passages.    Of  the  explanation  on  which  he  then 
insisted,  perhaps  he  is  become  ashamed,  and  if  so,  it  is 
thought  not  without  just  reason.    It  was  this:  that  the 
gift  of  Christ,  spoken  of  by  the  apostle,  was  only  designed 
to  continue  while  the  primitive  or  apostolic  church  waa 
in  an  infantile  state;  and  that  all  the  various  officers  of 
apostles,  &c.,  as  well  as  pastors  and  teachers,  were  given 
at  once,  and  the  offices  which  they  thus  held,  were  de- 
signed to  cease  at  their  death.    And  this,  too,  notwith- 
standing the  apostle  declares,  (ver.  12.)  that  the  design  of 
this  gift  was  "  for  the  perfecting  of  the  saints,  for  the  work 
of  the  ministry,  for  the  edifying  of  the  body  of  Christ*" 
For  all  which  objects  this  gift  is  as  much  needed  now,  as 
when  it  was  first  made.    I  cannot,  nor  is  it  necessary 
that  I  should,  give  a  full  detail  of  all  that  was  urged  to 
show  the  absurdity  of  this  exposition  of  Mr.  C,  which,  so 
far  as  I  can  recollect,  was  all  he  offered  in  answer  to  the 
irrefutable  arguments  which  it  is  considered  these  pas- 
sages afford,  of  a  divinely  instituted  ministry  of  the  gos- 
pel, which  was  intended  to  be  perpetual  in  the  church, 
and  consequently  of  the  unscriptural  system  which  is 
adopted  in  the  Campbellitisli  churches,  that  all  have  an 
equal  right,  and  all  are  under  equal  obligations  to  preach, 
provided  they  can  only  persuade  themselves  that  they  are 
qualified.    It  is  only  necessary  to  observe,  that  it  was 
shown,  from  the  history  of  the  "  Acts  of  the  Apostles," 
and  from  the  epistles,  that  the  assumption  of  Mr.  C,  that 
all  the  pastors  and  teachers  which  existed  in  the  apostolic 
churches,  were  given  at  once,  and  immediately  upon  the 
ascension  of  Christ,  was  not  true  in  point  of  fact.  That 
all  the  bishops  or  overseers,  and  at  least  such  of  the  elders 
as  labored  in  word  or  doctrine,  were  teachers  in  the 
church,  as  well  as  the  evangelists  and  the  apostles  them- 
selves, is  a  position  which  cannot  be  denied.    Thus  the 
apostles  sustained  two  offices:  one  extraordinary,  the 


CAMPBELLISM. 


113 


other,  that  of  teacher  or  elder,  in  common  with  others 
engaged  in  the  work  of  the  ministry.  Thus  the  apostle 
(1  Cor.  4:17.)  speaks  of  the  manner  of  his  teaching  "  in 
every  church."  And  in  describing  the  qualifications  of 
a  bishop,  he  says,  (1  Tim.  3:2.)  A  bishop  must  be  "  apt 
to  teach."  So  also  the  apostle  Peter  in  one  of  his  letters, 
declares  him  to  be  an  elder. 

Again,  it  clearly  appears,  and  especially  from  the 
apostle  Paul's  charge  to  the  elders  of  the  Ephesian 
church,  (x\cts  20.)  that  bishops,  elders,  and  pastors,  were 
different  designations  of  the  same  office.  He  required 
these  bishops,  or  overseers,  or  elders,  io  feed  the  flock  of 
God,  &c.  And  it  need  not  be  shown  that  the  meaning  of  a 
pastor  is  a  feeder,  and  consequently  that  the  great  duty 
of  a  pastor  in  the  church,  is  thus  to  feed  the  flock  of  the 
Shepherd  of  Israel.  Will  Mr.  C.  then  contend  there 
were  no  persons  set  apart  to  the  office  of  a  bishop,  or 
elder,  or  pastor,  or  teacher,  after  the  ascension  of  Christ? 
Either  he  must  thus  contend,  or  give  up  his  scheme  of  a 
gospel  church,  or  show  that  the  apostle  was  mistaken, 
when  he,  in  conjunction  with  the  presbytery,  laid  his 
hands  on  Timothy,  and  w^hen  he  directed  Titus  to  ordain 
elders  in  every  city — and  when  he  declared  to  the  elders 
or  pastors  of  the  Ephesian  church,  that  the  Holy  Ghost 
had  made  them  overseers,  or,  as  it  is  in  the  original, 
bishops. 

It  may  further  be  observed,  that  if  this  office  was  de- 
signed to  have  beein  but  temporary,  and  especially  if 
there  were  to  be  no  more  introduced  into  it,  would  the 
apostle  have  been  so  full,  as  well  as  particular  in  his  in- 


Timothy  and  Titus,)  both  concerning  the  requisite  quali- 
fications of  a  pastor  or  pubhc  teacher,  and  the  caution 
that  ought  to  be  observed  in  introducing,  or  admitting 
tiny  into  the  sacred  office. 

In  support  of  the  position,  that  such  as  rightly  under- 
t?ike  this  oflice,  are  in  a  certain  sense  called  of  God, 
several  passages  of  the  word  of  God  were  referred  to. 
and  indeed  it  miglit  well  be  contended,  that  as  all  the 


structions,  (especially 


11 


114 


DEBATE  CW 


true  prophets,  as  well  as  priests,  under  a  former  dispen- 
sation, were  called  of  God  to  their  resjiective  oiiices,  so 
that  "no  man  taketh  this  honor  unto  himself,  but  he 
that  is  called  of  God,  as  was  Aaron;"  so  it  woukl  also 
seem  reasonable  to  conclude,  that  God  would  in  some 
way  designate  such  as  he  designed  to  be  teachers  and 
rulers  in  the  church,  under  the  dispensation  of  the  gospel. 
It  was  therefore  observed,  that  Christ  has  given  direction 
to  tlie  chm'ch,  in  relation  to  this  imp<:>rtant  subject,  to 
pray  the  Lord  of  the  harvest  to  send  forth  laborers  into  his 
harvest.  If  tliere  were  no  special  divine  influence  upon 
the  minds  of  men,  or  special  intei-positions  of  divine  pro- 
vidence, whereby  they  were  incHned  to  seek  this  sacred 
office,  and  directed  in  the  path  of  duty,  there  could  be  no 
encouragement  or  ground  for  offering  the  prayer  which 
Christ  clirected:  and  consequently  we  may  conclude  he 
w*ould  not  have  reiiuired  his  disciples  thus  to  pray.  So 
also,  the  declaration  of  the  apostle  to  the  elders  of  the 
church  of  Ephesus,  already  alluded  to,  clearly  shows  the 
divine  call  of  those  men,  and  consequently  of  all  others 
who  properly  undertake  tl\e  sacred  office,  to  be  bishops 
or  pastors  in  the  church  of  God,  "  of  which  (church)  tJie 
Holy  Ghost  hath  made  you  overseers."  Thus  also,  it  is  said 
by  the  snme  apostle,  (Rom.  10:15,)  "  How  shall  they 
preach  except  they  be  sent?"  Who  shaU  send  them? 
Certainly  none  but  the  great  God,  even  our  Saviour  him- 
self, the  same  whose  voice  the  prophet  heard  saying-^ 
"  Whom  shall  I  send,  and  who  will  go  for  its?"  Tms 
emphatic  declaration  of  the  apostle,  is  entirely  subver- 
sive of  this  part  of  Mr.  C.*s  scheme.  It  amounts  to  a 
most  positive  declaration,  that  none  can  preach  with 
God's  approbation,  unless  they  be  sent  by  him,  or  in  other 
words,  are  made  teachers  by  the  Holy  Spirit.  Declaim, 
or  proclaim,  or  harangue  the  people,  as  does  Mr.  C, 
they  may;  but  preach  Christ  Jesus  the  Lord,  as  do  those 
laborers  whom  he  has  sent  forth  into  the  harvest,  it  is 
declared,  upon  apostolic  authority,  they  cannot.  But 
then  this  special  call  is,  by  Mr.  C,  alleged  to  be  incredi- 
ble, because  of  the  contradictory  messages  delivered  by 


CAMPBELLISH. 


115 


men,  who  equally  pretend  to  it,  and  because  no  one  of 
all  such  as  believe,  or  profess  themselves  to  be  the  sub- 
jects of  it,  can  prove  himself  to  have  been  thus  called  or 
sent  of  God.  That  the  ministers  of  the  gospel  belonging 
to  the  evangelical  denominations  of  Christians,  at  least 
such  as  may  be  said  so  be  sound  in  the  faith,  do  deliver 
contradietoiy  messages,  so  far  as  they  relate  to  the  only 
foundation  of  the  gospel,  I  affirm  to  be  a  false  assump- 
tion, nearly  allied  to  another  of  Mr.  C,  that  the  preach- 
ers of  the"  various  sects  preach  different  gospels.  la 
truth  they  preach  in  substance  the  same  gospel,  whilst 
Mr.  C.,it  is  believed,  preaches  ^'another  gospel"  than  that 
taught  by  Christ  and  his  apostles.  And  th^ir  difierence 
of  views  upon  points  that  do  not  affect  the  sure  founda- 
tion, furnishes  no  more  e\'idence  that  they  cannot  all  be 
sent  of  God,  tlian  do  the  differences  wliich  existed  among 
tlie  apostles,  prove  they  were  not  all  insfdred. 

Nor  was  it  designed,  nor  is  it  deemed  at  all  necessary, 
that  such  as  profess  to  believe  themselves  thus  called  to 
the  work  of  the  ministry,  should  be  able  to  prove  the 
fact,  by  any  positive  or  miraculous  evidence.  "  The 
only  call,  (says  Mr.  C.  in  his  narrative,)  which  any  man 
could  urge,  \vith  either  scripture  or  reason  on  his  side,*' 
is  **  his  competency  to  instruct,  and  the  need  for  it."  I 
<io  not  certainly  know  whether  he  intended  this  compe- 
Uncy  to  instnict,^^  to  include  true  godliness,  or  piety  of 
heart  and  soundness  in  the  faith,  as  well  as  intellectual  pow- 
ers and  acquirements,  together  with  an  aptness  to  teach. 
If  he  did,  then  I  would  say  that  this  "  competency  to  in- 
struct, and  the  need  for  it,"  together  widi  "  a  desire  for 
the  office  of  a  bishop,"  constitutes  the  e\idence  which 
ought  usually  to  be  deemed  sufficient,  to  lead  the  mind 
to  a  charitable  conclusion,  that  a  person  possessed  of 
such  qualifications  is  called  to  the  work  of  the  ministry. 
It  is  God  alone  who  can  thus  qualify  men  for,  and  inchne 
them  to  this  work.  "  But  the  competency  of  that  qualifi- 
cation, and  the  sincerity  of  that  inclination,  (says  the 
good  Matthew  Henry,  as  Mr.  C.  himself,  if  I  mistake 
not,  calls  him,)  must  not  be  left  to  the  judgment  of  every 


116 


DEBATE  OR^ 


man  for  himself :  the  nature  of  the  thing  will  by  no 
means  admit  that;  but  for  the  preservation  of  due  order 
in  the  church,  this  must  needs  be  referred  and  submitted 
to  the  judgment  of  others;  who,  as  in  all  other  calHngs, 
are  presumed  the  most  able  judges;  and  who  are  em- 
pow'ered  to  set  apart  such  as  they  find  thus  quahfied,  and 
iaclined  to  the  work  of  the  ministry.  Does  a  man  then 
profess  to  desire  the  work  of  the  ministry — and  is  he  at 
the  same  time  found,  (as  I  would  without  hesitation  say 
is  the  case  of  Mr.  C.,)  to  be  unsound  in  the  faith — or  is 
he  defective  as  it  regards  aptness  to  teach — or  has  he 
not  the  character  and  qualifications  described  by  the 
apostle  in  his  letters  to  Timothy  and  Titus'?  In  any  of 
these  cases,  it  would  sufficiently  appear,  that  he  is  a  de- 
ceiver, or  that  he  is  deceived,  or  at  least  mistaken.  But 
where  the  reverse  of  this  appears  to  be  the  case,  and  the 
tenor  of  the  life  and  conversation  of  the  person  profes- 
sing this  desire,  shows  that  this  sacred  office  is  sought 
with  a  view  to  God's  glory  and  the  salvation  of  souls,  it 
is,  it  is  believed,  in  accordance  with  scriptural  exam- 
ples, as  well  as  precepts,  that  such  person  be  set  apart 
to  the  work  of  the  ministry  by  the  imposition  of  hands; 
even  though  he  himself,  or  they  who  thus  set  him  apart, 
may  be  mistaken  with  regard  to  his  supposed  qualifica- 
tions for,  and  call  to  the  ministry.  The}'  have,  it  is  sup- 
posed, duly  regarded  and  conscientiously  observed,  in 
relation  to  the  solemn  transaction,  the  directions  of  the 
great  Head  of  the  church,  so  far  as  they  have  been  en- 
abled to  understand  them.  That  persons  who  are  believed 
to  have  been  thus  called,  are  to  be  set  apart  by  the  lay- 
ing on  of  hands,  it  would  seem  is  clearly  evident,  both 
from  apostolic  precept  and  example.  The  single  direc- 
tion to  "  Jay  hands  suddenly  on  no  ?nonj"  would  seem  of 
itself,  sufficient  to  estabhsh  the  position,  unless  Mr.  C. 
can  give  it  such  an  interpretation,  as  will  prove  that  it 
has  no  application,  whatever,  to  the  setting  apart  men 
to  the  ministry  of  the  gospel. 

Mr.  C.  seems,  in  relation  to  this  subject  of  ordination, 
to  lay  great  stress  on  the  fact,  which  he  states  was  urged 


CAMPBlBLLISko 


117 


m\  ills  part,  without  an  effort  on  mine  to  adiduee  an  ex- 
caption,  "  that  no  man  was  ever  ordained  by  the  apostles, 
to  break  or  consecrate  the  loaf,  (in  other  words  to  ad- 
minister the  Lord's  Supper.)  or  to  immerse  or  sprinkle.*' 
In  opposition  to  this,  another  fact  may  be  urged,  that  it 
does  not  appear  from  the  sacred  record,  that  any  man 
was  ever  ordained  by  the  apostles,  expressly  to  preach 
the  gospel.  Yet  we  know  from  facts  recorded,  as  well 
as  from  the  apostolic  directions,  that  this  was  a  chief 
part  of  the  commission.  If  therefore  \\%  lenm  from 
tlie  sacred  history,  that  such  as  had  been  thus  pre\'iously 
ordained,  did  baptize  such  as  professed  to  believe  en  the 
Lord  Jesus  Christ,  and  especially,  if  we  fiitd  no  satisfac- 
tory evidence  that  any  person,  not  thus  ordained,  and 
not  acting  on  an  extraordinary  or  special  comniission 
from  the  Head  of  the  church,  ever  did  baptize  or  bi  e<.k 
the  bread,  or  bless  the  cup,  that  was  used  in  the  celebra- 
tion of  the  Lord's  Supper,  then  it  will  clearly  follow, 
that  to  perform  these  services,  or  to  administer  these 
ordinances,  appertains  to  the  work  of  the  ministry,  as 
w^ell  as  the  preaching  of  the  gospel.  In  proof,  as  well  as 
by  way  of  illustration  of  the  fact,  opposed  to  the  fact 
urged  by  Mr.  C,  it  is  worthy  of  notice,  that  when  Barna- 
bas and  Saul,  (afterward  called  Paul,)  were  separated, 
set  apart,  or  ordained,  by  fasting  and  prayer  and  imposi- 
tion of  hands,  at  Antioch,  by  the  special  command  of  the 
Holy  Ghost,  "  for  the  work  ichereuntd'^  he  had  called 
them,  we  are  not  informed  by  the  history  of  that  ordina- 
tion, what  was  the  particular  nature  of  that  work.  By 
the  subsequent  part  of  that  history,  we  learn,  however, 
that  they  went  forth  in  consequence  of  such  ordination, 
and  "  preached  the  word  of  God,"  first  to  the  Jews, 
(Acts  13:1 — 5,)  but  when  they  put  it  from  them,  and 
judged  tliemseives  "  unworthy  of  everlasting  life,"  (ver. 
46,)  they  turned  to  the  Gentile?.  We  further  learn, 
(chap.  14:23,)  that  another  part  of  their  work  was  to  or- 
dain elders,  for  they  did  thus  set  men  apart  in  every 
church.  It  was,  then,  in  pursuance  of  this  special  com- 
mission, that  Paul  first  became  the  apostle  of  the  Gen- 

♦  U 


118 


DEBATE  01? 


tiles;  and  we  learn  that  the  labors  of  himself  and  his 
companion  Barnabas,  were  not  in  vain.  Their  preach- 
ing was  in  the  demonstration  of  the  Spirit,  in  conse- 
quence of  which  "  the  Gentiles  were  glad,  and  glorified 
tiic  word  of  the  Lord."  (ver.  43.)  As  the  fruit  of  their 
labors,  sinners  were  converted  to  the  faith,  churches 
were  established,  and  elders  ordained  in  them.  Now,  I 
a.sk  who  baptized  such  as  professed  their  faith?  Not  Paul, 
or  at  least  if  he  did  baptize,  it  must  have  been  very  few, 
for  he  himself  declares,  (1  Cor.  1:14 — 16,)  that  he  bap- 
tized none  but  Crispus,  and  Gaius,  and  the  household  of 
Stephanus;  and  it  moreover  appears,  by  the  history  of 
tiie  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  that  Crispus  was  not  converted 
until  after  the  fulfilment  of  this  special  commission. 
Nor  can  we  conclude  that  Paul  directed  the  converts  to 
baptize  one  another,  according  to  the  principle  advocated 
by  Mr.  C,  for  as  they  preached  the  gospel  to  Gentiles, 
where  no  church,  or  church  members  existed,  it  follows 
that  they  must  have  been  baptized  by  Barnabas,  who 
was  not  an  apostle,  but  an  ordained  minister  of  Christ. 

What  thus  appears  clear  as  a  matter  of  inference,  in 
this  instance,  is  put  beyond  all  possible  doubt,  by  the  fact 
that  Philip  not  only  baptized  the  Eunuch,  but  the  num- 
bers who  professed  their  faith  under  his  preaching  at 
Samaria.  But  the  baptism  of  the  Eunuch,  is  adduced  by 
Mr.  C.  as  an  instance  of  that  ordinance  having  been  ad- 
ministered by  a  layman.  Can  it  be  possible  that  Mr.  C. 
is  so  ignorant  of  the  history  of  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles, 
about  which  he  writes  and  harangues  so  much,  as  not  to 
know,  that  notwithstanding  Philip  was  one  of  the  seven 
v/ho  were  first  chosen  by  the  people,  in  pursuance  of  the 
direction  of  the  apostles,  and  ajfterwards  by  them  set  apart 
to  "serve  tables,"  &c.  he  was  also  an  evangelist.  (Acts  2 1:8.) 
^vVhen  therefore  we  consider  that  the  apostle  enumerates 
'v/angehsts,  among  the  various  grades  of  the  servants  and 
ministers  of  Christ,  the  case  of  the  Eunuch's  baptism  by 
Philip,  proves  my  position,  but  disproves  that  of  Mr.  C 
He  also  refers  to  the  baptism  of  Paul  by  Ananias,  as 
another  instance  of  a  layman  having  administered  the 


CAMPBELLISM. 


119 


ordinance.  It  seems  to  me  there  are  answers  to  the  argu- 
ment drawn  from  this  case,  neither  of  which  can  be  re- 
sisted. The  first  is,  that  the  fact  that  Ananias  was  a 
mere  layman,  is  not,  and  cannot  be  estabHshed.  The 
contrary,  it  would  seem  from  the  nature  of  the  service 
he  was  called  to  perform,  would  be  a  reasonable  inference. 
But  be  that  as  it  may,  Ananias  had  a  special  commission 
from  the  head  of  the  church,  and  if  any  CampbelHte  is 
able  to  produce  a  similar  authority,  I  shall  no  longer 
object  to  his  administering  the  ordinance,  though  he  be 
in  other  respects  a  layman.  The  only  remaining  case, 
referred  to  by  Mr.  C,  is  the  command  given  by  Peter, 
(Acts  10,)  that  the  Centurion  and  his  household  should 
be  baptized.  Here  again  Mr.  C.  rests  his  argument  upon 
two  presumptions — that  there  were  no  disciples,  except 
the  brethren  which  accompanied  Peter  from  Joppa,  and 
that  all  these  brethren  were  laymen.  If  we  were  to  ad- 
mit the  first  presiAiiption  to  be  a  reasmahle  one,  the  last, 
it  is  considered,  is  the  reverse;  at  best  it  leads  the  mind 
to  no  certain  conclusion,  that  baptism  in  the  apostolic 
church,  w^as  ever  administered  by  a  layman.  And  when 
it  is  considered  that  we  know  with  certainty  the  opposite 
practice  existed,  and  was  continued  till  the  darkness  and 
superstition  of  Popery  introduced  the  doctrine,  which  is 
now  revived  by  Mr.  'C,  as  a  part  of  the  ancient  gospel, 
that  baptism  was  essential  to  salvation,  (which  led  to  the 
introduction  6{  lay  baptism,  that  in  cases  of  necessity  the 
soul  might  not  be  lost  for  the  want  of  the  outward  appli- 
cation of  water,)  we  may  safely  conclude,  that  the  idea 
of  baptism  being  administered  by  mere  laymen,  in  the 
apostoHc  church,  is  a  figment  of  Mr.  C.'s  imagination. 

With  regard  to  the  celebration  of  the  Lord's  supper, 
it  is  alleged  by  Mr.  C,  that  the  coming  together  of  the 
disciples  to  break  the  loaf  at  Troas,  was  adduced  to 
show,  that  "  no  official  hands  or  consecrated  heads,"  were 
required  to  celebrate  this  ordinance.  Here,  again,  the 
argument  rests  altogether  upon  presumption.  It  is  pre- 
sumed, either  that  there  were  no  pastors  or  elders  in  the 
church  at  Troas,  or  if  there  were,  they  did  not  officiate 


120 


DEBATE  ON 


as  such  in  the  celebration  of  the  Lord's  supper.  Suffice 
it  to  say,  that  the  contrary  presumptions  are,  at  least  in 
my  apprehension,  by  far  the  most  reasonable,  especially 
when  we  consider  the  declaration  of  Paul,  (1  Cor.  10:16.) 
"  The  cup  of  blessing  which  we  bless,  is  it  not  the  commu^ 
nion  of  the  blood  of  Christ?  the  bread  which  we  break, 
is  it  not  the  communion  of  the  body  of  Christ?"  Mr.  C. 
alleges,  that  in  the  debate,  I  did  not  attempt  to  sustain 
this  text,  as  spoken  of  the  apostle's  breaking  the  loaf.  If 
he  means  that  I  did  not  attempt  to  sliow  Irom  this  pas- 
sage that  the  apostles  alone,  or  exclusively  of  othej^  elders, 
or  pastors  or  teachers,  administered  or  celebrated  the  or- 
dinance of  the  supper,  he  is  correct.  I  considered,  and 
still  consider,  that  Paul,  in  this  passage,  included  all  the 
ordained  ministers  of  Christ,  as  well  as  the  apostles.  For 
these  last,  as  well  as  the  former,  were  but  servants  of 
Christ  who  acknowledged  themselves  to  be  elders,  in 
common  with  their  brethren,  who  had  been  ordained  or 
set  apart  to  the  work  of  the  ministry,  though  at  the  same 
time  they  had  an  extraordinary  commission  as  apostles, 
and  were  endued  for  special  purposes,  with  the  Spirit  of 
inspiration. 

My  denying,  therefore,  that  I  considered  myself  as  a 
successor  of  the  apostles,  as  such,  neither  touched  the 
question  of  a  succession  of  a  regular  ministry,  nor  yet 
had  any  bearing  upon  that  under  discussion.  I  would 
further  observe,  that,  if  Mr.  C.  means  to  contend,  that  in 
the  passage  just  quoted,  the  apostle  has  no  allusion  to  the 
Lord's  supper,  it  shows,  according  to  my  judgment,  the 
weakness  of  his  cause.  I  therefore,  upon  a  review  of  the 
whole  matter,  assume  this  pjosition,  which  I  am  ready  to 
think  every  candid  and  impartial  reader  will  think  to  be 
sufficiently  supported,  that  nothing  less  than  precept  or 
example,  drawn  from  the  New  Testament,  not  by  doubt- 
ful presumptions,  or  vague  inferences,  but  by  the  express 
declaration  of  the  sacred  writer  or  historian,  ought  to  be 
considered  as  a  sufficient  warrant  for  the  administration 
of  either  the  ordinance  of  baptism,  or  the  Lord's  supper 
by  laymen.  Whether  such  precept  or  example,  has  been. 


CAMPBELLiSM. 


121 


or  can  be  shown,  by  Mr.  C,  let  the  candid  reader  de» 
termine. 

That  part  of  Mr.  C.'s  narrative  which  has  already  come 
under  consideration,  does  assume  something  of  the  form 
of  a  history  of  the  debate,  though  partial,  garbled  and 
containing  much  misrepresentation.  An  instance  of 
which  is  found  on  page  114  of  his  Harbinger,  containing 
his  narrative,  where  he  asserts  that  I  "  put  to  sea,  and 
only  touched  upon  the  coast  of  foreign  countries,  never 
entering  a  single  harbor."  Another  instance  of  misrepre- 
sentation, as  well  as  a  false  assertion,  are  found  on  the 
next  page,  where  Mr.  C.  represents  me  as  "  having  first 
plead  [pleaded]  that  a  man's  desire  for  the  office  of  a 
bishop,  was  a  special  call  to  the  work,"  and  afterwards 
having  abandoned  "  that  point." 

The  direct  false  assertion  to  which  I  have  alluded,  is, 
that  with  the  alleged  abandonment  of  Uiat  point  "  ended 
any  thing  lihe  discussion  on  Saturday.''^  It  seems  to  have 
suited  Mr.  C.'s  views  to  suppress,  as  far  as  possible,  all 
account  of  what  I  considered  the  most  important  parts 
of  the  discussion  on  Saturday.  He  has  therefore  thought 
proper  to  despatch  his  account  of  the  remainder  of  that 
day's  debate  in  two  short  paragraphs,  which,  besides  his 
allusion  to  the  wounded  Parthian,  and  his  briUiant  at- 
tempt at  wit  in  misrepresenting  me  as  flying  from  point 
to  point — from  Point  Look-out,  to  Point  Look-in,  &c., 
contains  two  other  direct  assertions  that  are  positively 
false,  and  which  I  shall  notice  in  due  time.  The  simple 
and  naked  truth  is,  that  instead  of  touching  only  upon  the 
coasts  of  foreign  countries,  with  an  array  of  facts  clad  in 
the  bright  robe  of  truth,  and  supported  by  the  sharp  and 
two  edged  sword  of  the  Spirit,  I  not  only  invaded  the 
coast,  but  I  trust  was  enabled  to  make  a  breach  upon  the 
enchanted  castle  of  this  giant  of  error,  which  it  is  hoped 
he  will  not  be  able  to  repair.  In  this  conflict,  whether 
he  or  myself  was  wounded,  let  the  impartial  part  of  the 
audience  decide;  for  if  I  was  the  wounded  person,  I  was 
not  conscious  of  it.  And  instead  of  flying  from  paint 
to  point"  I  was  under  the  strong  impression,  that  under 


122 


DBBATE  ON' 


the  attacks  that  were  made  on  Saturday,  (and  especially 
after  the  time  when  Mr.  C.  represents  every  thing  like 
discussion  had  ended,)  as  well  upon  his  integrity  as  a 
compiler  of  a  new  version  of  the  New  Testament,  as  u}> 
on  his  principles,  he  was  so  pressed  by  the  sharp  point  of 
the  weapon  of  truth,  that  he  rather  resembled  a  wounded 
Parthian,  who,  notwithstanding  all  his  boasted  dexterity 
and  prowess  was  compelled  to  "  look  out,"  as  well  as  to 
"  look  in."  In  other  words,  to  put  in  requisition  all  his  re- 
sources, as  well  to  discover  a  way  of  escape,  as  to  main- 
tain an  affected  composure,  that  did  but  very  imperfectly 
conceal  the  torture  under  which  he  writhed.  Mr.  C. 
may  misunderstand  or  misrepresent  what  I  have  here 
said,  as  he  did  my  allusion,  in  the  commencement  of  the 
debate  on  Saturday,  to  the  case  of  David  meeting  the 
giant  of  Gath  with  a  sling  and  stone,  and  represent  me 
in  this  instance,  as  he  seems  to  have  in  that,  as  boasting 
of  what  I  at  least  supposed  I  had  done.  Such,  however, 
in  the  instance  alluded  to,  was  not,  as  I  trust  in  this  case 
it  is  not»  the  fact.  I  knew  that  in  the  opinion  not  only  of 
all  his  followers,  but  also  of  many  others,  Mr.  C.  possess- 
ed, and  especially  in  public  debate,  besides  a  giant's 
strength,  more  than  Parthian  dexterity;  and  that  the  con- 
fident expectation  of  all  these,  was,  that  such  a  pigmy  aa 
myself  must  be  speedily,  if  not  instantly,  overthrown.  My 
allusion,  therefore,  to  the  conflict  between  Jesse's  son, 
and  Gath's  boasted  giant,  was  intended  as  an  apology  for 
my  apparent  presumption,  in  having  accepted,  under  an 
imperious  sense  of  duty,  the  challenge  of  this  champion  of 
error,  who  had  long  been  in  the  habit  of  defying  the  ar- 
mies (not  of  Calvinism,  as  Mr.  C.  has  falsely  represented, 
but)  of  evangelical  Christians  of  every  name,  who  were 
considered  as  belonging  to  the  armies  of  the  Hving  God. 
As  I  trust  I  was  in  some  measure  conscious  of  my  own 
weakness,  and  therefore  entered  into  the  contest  with 
some  degree  of  the  same  sensible  dependence  upon,  and 
trust  in,  "  the  Lord  Jehovah,  in  whom  there  is  everlasting 
strength,"  which  so  pre-eminently  was  exhibited  by  the 
beardless  shepherd  youth,  v  hen  advancing  to  meet  the 


CAMPBELLISSr. 


12S 


Philistine,  confident  and  boasting  in  his  own  strength;  so 
I  believed,  and  still  believe,  (and  this  belief  is  certainly  ia 
accordance  with  that  of  a  vast  majority  of  all  that  part 
oi'  the  audience  that  could  be  said  to  be  in  any  degree  im- 
partial, or  whose  minds  were  at  all  open  to  conviction,) 
the  result  was  in  some  measure  the  same,  I  am  not, 
therefore,  boasting  of  my  strength  or  skill,  and  if  in  that 
conflict,  I  was  enabled  in  any  degree  to  exhibit  the  one, 
or  to  exert  the  other,  all  the  glory  is  due  to  "  Jehovah 
my  strength,"  who  himself  declares  his  strength  to  be 
perfected  in  weakness,  and  "  who  teacheth"  the  hands 
of  his  servants  "  to  war,"  and  their  "  fingers  to  fight." 

After  "  any  thing  like  discussion  on  Saturday"  had 
ended,  according  to  the  fa/se  assertion  of  Mr.  C,  he  adds, 
"  'Tis  true  he  read  and  commented  on  some  extracts 
from  his  manuscript  sermons  on  Divine  operations,"  &c. 
This,  also,  so  far  from  being  true  is  false,  absolutely 
false.  I  had  not  then,  or  at  any  time  during  the  debate, 
in  my  immediate  possession,  any  of  my  "  manuscript  ser* 
mons,"  or  any  extracts  from  them.  Nor  did  I  look  at, 
or  make  the  least  use  of  any  manuscript  sermons,  during 
the  discussion  with  any  reference  thereto.  It  is  true,  ne- 
vertheless, that  before  the  return  of  Mr.  C.  from  Colum- 
bia, and  when  it  began  to  be  generally  expected  that  a 
further  discussion  would  take  place,  I  noted  some  of  tli« 
most  exceptionable  points  advanced  by  him  in  the  dis- 
course I  had  heard  him  deliver,  as  well  as  a  number  of 
passages  of  scripture  upon  which  he  professed,  as  well 
as  others,  and  upon  which,  I  intended  in  case  of  a  further 
debate,  to  rely.  As  also,  a  number  of  passages  in  the 
New  Testament,  which  I  considered  to  be  materially  al- 
tered or  corrupted  in  his  version,  together  with  some 
brief  memoranda  of  the  result  of  such  a  critical  examin- 
ation of  the  same,  as  time  and  circumstances  permitted 
me  to  make.  And  the  circumstance  of  my  using  these 
brief  notes,  during  the  debate,  was  fully  sufficient  in  the 
view  of  Mr.  C.  to  warrant  hini  in  making  the  false  and 
reckless  assertion,  which,  as  will  be  seen  in  the  sequel  of 
his  narrative,  he  in  substance  not  only  repeats,  but  aggra- 


124 


DEBATE  OK 


vates,  by  the  insinuation,  that  in  order  to  get  a  fresh 
supply,  I,  Hke  himself,  dealt  in  dissimulation  and  false- 
hood, and  that  I  read  and  commented  on  extracts  from 
my  manuscript  sermons. 

Mr.  C.  further  states,  that  I  "  even  professed  to  criticise 
some  phrases  in  the  new  version,  and  represented  Dr. 
Macknight  as  a  formalist,  because  a  dry  })reacher."  In 
this  statement  there  is  some  faint  resemblance,  or  slight 
approximation  to,  a  true  repre>entation  of  what  was,  at 
least,  attempted  to  be  done.  As  I  considered  the  "  neio 
version"  one  of  the  greatest  and  most  dangerous  imposi- 
tions which  has  been  attempted  to  be  practised  upon  the 
public,  by  any  pretended  religionist  of  the  present  day,  I 
next  entered  upon  a  brief  examination  of  Mr.  C.'s  qualifi- 
cations, as  well  as  pretensions  to  integrity  and  impartial- 
ity, as  a  compiler  of  "  the  new  version;"  and  also  of  the 
merits  or  truth  and  accuracy  of  the  version  itself.  To 
enter  upon  the  discussion  of  this  subject,  Mr.  C.  evidently 
manifested  great  reluctance.  He  loudly  complained,  that 
I  would  not  stick  to  any  one  subject,  but  kept  flying  from 
one  point,  or  subject,  to  another.  He  moreover  alleged, 
that  that  was  neither  the  time  nor  place  to  discuss  the 
merits  of  the  new  version.  He  professed  his  readiness,  at 
any  time,  to  vindicate  it  against  any,  and  all  attacks  that 
could  be  made  upon  it,  provided  there  could  be  a  proper, 
or  competent  tribunal  constituted  or  erected,  that  would 
be  well  acquainted  vnth  the  original  (or  Greek  language) 
in  which  the  New  Testament  was  w^ritten;  but  insisted  it 
would  be  useless,  if  not  absurd,  to  enter  into  the  discus- 
sion of  this  subject  before  such  an  audience,  as  was  then 
present. 

To  me  it  seemed  inconsistent,  and  absurd,  that  Mr.  C, 
who  had  challenged  objections  to  his  views,  should  after- 
wards complain  when  objections  were  made,  that  they 
were  multiplied  too  fast  upon  his  hands;  or,  in  other 
words,  that  I  w^ould  not  confine  myself  to  one  subject. 
It  was,  however,  replied,  that  I  would  have  no  objection 
to  gratify  Mr.  C.  so  far,  at  least,  as  to  dwell  upon  each 
topic  I  advanced,  as  long  as  it  could  with  any  propriety 


CAMPBELLISM. 


125 


be  desired,  were  I  not  so  straitened  for  time.  But  as  I 
had  an  extensive  field  before  me,  which  I  wished  to  tra- 
verse in  company  with  Mr.  C,  I  was  under  the  necessity 
of  moving  with  as  much  celerity  as  the  nature  of  the 
case  would  admit.  That  his  objections  to  entering  upon 
the  examination  of  the  merits  of  the  new  version,  were 
predicated  upon  the  gratuitous  assumption,  which  was 
contrary  to  the  fact,  that  there  were  no  persons  present 
acquainted  with  the  original  language  of  the  New  Tes- 
tament, or  quahfied  to  judge  the  question  then  to  be 
discussed. 

The  objection,  moreover,  came  with  a  very  bad  grace 
from  Mr.  C,  who,  with  an  affected  display  of  his  learn- 
ing, so  frequently,  in  his  public  harangues,  resorts  to,  and 
criticises  upon  the  original  Greek  of  the  New  Testament; 
and  especially  when  he  wishes  to  make  it  speak  a  lan- 
guage different  from  our  long  approved  version;  or, 
when  that  cannot  be  done,  to  wrest  its  true  meaning  in 
support  of  his  religious  infidelity,  as  in  the  case  before 
alluded  to,  where  he  talked  so  much  about  musterion. 
That  he  had  not  been  backward  in  our  first  debate  to 
recur  to  the  Greek,  for  the  first  of  the  purposes  just 
mentioned,  is  also  evident  from  his  criticism  upon  the 
word  TouTO,  (Eph.  2:8.)  It  evidently  seemed  therefore 
that  Mr.  C.  was  himself  conscious,  there  was  "  something 
rotten  in  the  state  of  Denmark;"  or,  in  plain  language, 
that  this  subject  of  the  new  version,  with  the  facts^  and 
circumstances  therewith  connected,  could  not  bear  ex- 
amination, without  furnishing  sufficient  cause  for  "  shame 
and  confusion  of  face"  on  his  part.  And  it  is  due  to  Mr. 
C.  to  say,  that,  unless  many  w^ere  greatly  mistaken,  the 
progress  of  the  discussion  of  this  particular  subject,  evin- 
ced, that  he  can  yet  blush,  notwithstanding  any  opinions 
that  may  have  been  entertained  to  the  contrary. 

Notwithstanding  the  great  reluctance  of  Mr.  C.  to 
enter  upon  the  discussion  of  this  subject,  it  was  observed 
in  continuation  of  the  debate,  that  of  all  men  in  our  coun- 
try, it  was  conceived  that  he  was  the  most  unqualified  to 
undertake,  even  the  compilation  of  a  new  version  of  any 
12 


DEBATE  OJf 


part  of  the  sacred  scriptures.  To  say  nofhmg  of  tlie 
various  acquirements,  and  ecspeciaily  of  that  deep  and 
unaffected  spirit  of  iiumbie  piety,  winch  the  undertaker 
of  such  a  work  ought  to  possess, — ihe  fact  that  he  was^ 
as  lie  still  is,  at  the  head  of  a  party,  and  that  he  had 
evidently  been  long  laboring  to  become  the  founder  of  a 
sect,  ought  to  have  been,  and  had  he  been  possessed  of 
a  usual  share  of  modesty,  would  have  heeuy  sufficient  to 
pre  vent  him  from  attempting  to  put  forth  a  new  version 
of  tlie  New  Testament;  and  the  manner  in  which  he  has 
executed  his  pretejided  compilation,  shows  clearly,  it  is 
conceived,  not  only  his  arrogance^,  but  want  of  moral  in- 
tegrity. 

That  wdth  a  view  to  give  currency  and  publicity  to  fii» 
own  peculiar  sentiments,  as  well  as  the  appearance  of 
then'  being  supported  by  the  word  of  God;  and  also,  as. 
it  would  evidently  seem,  with  a  view  to  make  vioiieyy  Mr. 
C.  has  attempted  to  practise  a  deception  upon  the  public 
by  the  publication  of  his  new  version,  was  a  position  not 
only  assumed,  but  established,  in  the  discussion;  so  far  at 
least,  as  to  render  his  situation  and  feelings,  in  the  view 
of  a  large  portion  of  the  audience,  far  from  bemg  envia- 
ble. The  facts  and  circumstances  chiefly  reUed  upon  in 
support  of  this  position,  it  is  now  proposed  to  give  in  de- 
tail, with  a  view  that  my  readers  may  for  themselves 
determine  w^hether  it  was  sufficiently  established.  That 
Mr.  C.'s  motives  were  such  as  have  been  suggested,  may 
be  inferred  from  the  circumstance,  that  for  the  purposes 
of  the  advancement  of  the  cause  of  tmth,  and  the  promo- 
tion of  pure  and  undefiled  religion,  a  new  version,  (much 
less  such  a  version  as  that  of  the  Bishop  of  Bethany,) 
was  not  needed.  I  am  aware  that  it  may  be  alleged, 
tha^  in  assuming  this  position,  there  is  a  begging  of  the 
question,  or  what  logicians  call  a  petitio  principiL  It  is- 
conceived,  nevertheless,  that  such  is  not  the  fact.  The  posi- 
tion rests  upon  the  undem'able  fact,  that  our  standard  ver- 
sion of  the  scriptures,  has,  for  several  generations,  received 
the  decided  approbation  of  all  sects,  that  can  with  any 
proprietv  be  said  to  belong  to  the  Christian  world — nos 


CAflPBELLlSM,  127 

I 

•OYily  of  such  as  were  comparatively  igrxorant  and  un- 
learned, but  a]  so,  and  especially  of  such  as  have  been 
most  distinguished  for  their  learning,  among  whom  have 
been  found  Uniuirians,  whose  candor  compelled  them  to 
unite  in  bearing  testimony  to  the  superior  excellence  and 
accuracy  of  our  English  translation  of  the  Bible.  If  then 
it  would  not  be  considered  as  involving  the  petitio  prin- 
cipii,  to  argue  from  the  established  character  of  the 
Father  of  his  and  our  country,  for  patriotism,  skill  in  the 
art  of  war,  or  pohtical  wisdom,  (as  it  is  humbly  conceived 
it  would  not,)  much  less,  can  it  justly  be  alleged,  that  the 
assertion  is  a  sopliism,  that  a  new  version  of  the  New 
Testament  is  not  needed,  unless  it  be  for  some  sinister 
design. 

If,  indeed,  we  are  to  give  lieed  to  Mr.  C,  and  credit 
his  testimony,  in  opposiiion  to  that  of  the  Protestant 
Christian  world  united,  and  continued  from  one  centiiry 
to  another,  we  should  be  led,  as  are  some  of  his  deluded 
followers,  to  a  very  difterent  conclusion.  lii  the  defence 
of  his  new  version,  which  he  attempted  to  make  in  ihfc 
public  discussion,  he  asserted  our  standard  translation  tc 
be  very  defective  and  erroneous;  and  that  in  some  in- 
stances, (of  which  he  attempted  to  specify  two,)  it  had 
been  made  to  read,  as  it  now  does,  with  a  view  to  have 
a  bearing  against  the  sentiments  of  the  Remonstrants  or 
Arminians,  and  to  support  those  of  Calvin.  It  is  net 
thought  necessary  to  specify  or  comment  upon  those 
passages  in  the  New  Testament  to  which  Mr,  C.  referred. 
It  is  deemed  fully  sufficient  to  refute  his  allegation,  to 
observe  that  Arminians  and  Calvinists,  at  least  equally 
as  learned  and  as  well  informed  upon  the  subject  of  our 
standard  translation  of  the  Bible,  as  Mr.  C.  himself,  have 
ever  most  heartily  united  in  bearing  theh  testimony  in 
favor  of  its  excellence  and  faithful  exhibition  of  divine 
revelation,  in  our  own  tongue. 

But  it  may  be  alleged,  as  it  was,  and  has  frequently, 
in  substance  at  least,  by  Mr.  C.  in  defence  of  his  new 
version,  that  whatever  degree  of  excellence  may  be 
claimed  for  our  standard  version  of  the  Eible,  it  cannot 


128 


DEBATE  Oi\ 


be  asserted  that  it  is  like  the  original,  perfect,  or  unsus- 
ceptible of  any  amendment,  and  to  call  in  question  his 
motives  in  undertakincr  to  jrive  the  ]Xew  Testament  in  a 
new  dress,  is  virtually  passing  a  censure  upon  every 
individual,  who,  since  the  reign  of  James  I.,  has  given 
to  the  world  a  translation  of  the  scriptures,  different  from 
that  which  was  made  by  tlie  numerous,  learned,  and 
pious  men,  selected  by  him  for  that  purpose. 

Without  undertaking  to  determine  on  the  undertaking 
of  any  one  of  the  individual  translators  referred  to, 
whether  deserving  praise  or  blame,  suffice  it  to  observer 
that  however  the  labors  of  some  of  the  translators 
alluded  to,  have  been,  or  may  be  found  useful,  especially 
to  biblical  scholars  and  critics,  by  shedding  additional 
light  upon  some  passages  of  the  sacred  oracles,  it  is  be- 
lieved that  Mr.  C.  is  the  first  translator,  or  pretended 
compiler  of  a  new  version,  that  has  ever  been  so  devoid 
'>f  modesty,  as  to  urge  the  substitution  of  his  oirn  work, 
ia  place  of  that  which  has  been  so  long  approved.  Much 
less  is  it  supposed,  that  any  individual  translator,  since 
the  general  adoption  of  ilic  standard  version,  has  ever 
been  found  so  full  of  self-sufficiency  and  arrogance,  as 
to  stand  up  in  a  public  assembly,  under  the  assumed 
character  of  a  pubUc  teacher,  and  say  to  his  audience, 
(as  it  is  the  constant  habit  of  Mr.  C,  with  his  own  version 
before  him,)  "  let  us  attend  to  the  word  of  God."  With  a 
view,  it  is  presumed,  to  exercise  their  talents  and  ac- 
quirements, as  well  as  to  edify  Christians,  and  especially 
such  as  would  desire  to  search  the  scriptures  thoroughly, 
the  most  of  the  translators  alluded  to,  were  induced  to 
undertake  the  work,  and  publish  the  resuh  of  their  labors^ 
to  the  church  and  to  the  world.  At  the  same  time  they 
had  no  desire,  or  intention  to  lessen  the  estimation  in 
which  the  old  version  has  so  long  been  deservedly  held: 
much  less  to  supersede  its  general  use,  as  that  standard 
of  truth  to  which  the  Christian  world  at  large,  who  speak 
the  English  language,  ought  to  continue,  as  they  have 
done  for  centuries,  to  make  their  ultimate  appeal.  But 
if  any  of  the  individual  translators  of  the  scripfTires,  al- 


129 


ready  alluded  to,  were  so  presumptuous  as  to  publish 
their  respective  versions  of  the  scriptures,  or  any  portion 
of  them,  with  a  view  or  expectation,  (such  as  was  evi- 
dently entertained  by  Mr.  C,  in  giving  his  new  version 
to  the  world,)  thereby  to  supersede  that  which  has  been, 
and  continues  to  be,  in  general  use,  the  result  has  proved 
how  greatly  they  were  mistaken  in  their  calcijation?. 
Still,  Mr.  C.,  although  pofcssrclly  a  mere  -compiler,  has 
not  been  disappointed  in  his  expectations,  at  least,  to  the 
same  extent.  How  is  this  to  be  accounted  for?  The 
translators  alluded  to,  for  the  most  part,  at  least,  were 
persons  of  candor,  piety,  and  impartiahty,  w^ho  had  no 
sectarian  or  party  views  to  ac-complish — no  selfish  or 
ambitious  schemes  in  view.  They  did  not,  therefore, 
strive  to  make  the  scriptures  speak  a  language  difierent 
from  their  true  m.eaning,  and  such  as  would  seem  to  dis- 
cover some  easier  way  to  heaven.  They  were  willing 
to  rest  the  claims  of  their  respective  translations  to  the 
patronage  of  the  Christian  public,  upon  their  intrinsic 
value.  And  the  consequence  has  been,  that  however 
highly  some  of  these  translations  may  have  been  esteem- 
ed as  a  valuable  acquisition  to  a  library,  no  attempt  has 
ever  been  made  to  adopt  them,  or  any  one  of  them, 
instead  of  that  version  which  has  been  so  long  approved. 

But  Mr.  C.  has  wisely^  (as  it  regards  his  ow^n  interest 
and  the  promotion  of  his  sinister  designs,)  identified  the 
claims  of  his  patched  version,  with  his  system  of  divinity, 
or  rather  his  system  of  errors,  which  may  well  be  com- 
pared to  a  coat  of  many  colors,  and  made  up  of  many 
patches,  some  of  which  are  indeed  very  old,  and  long 
since  were  considered  to  have  been  worn  out,  and  others 
are  of  a  more  recent  fabrication,  which,  by  a  bold  mis- 
nomer, he  calls  the  "ancient  gospel."  The  consequence 
has  been,  that  w^hilst  the  great  body,  not  only  of  profess- 
ing Christians  of  every  evangelical  sect,  but*  also  of  men 
of  intelligence  and  candor  in  our  country,  who  make  no 
profession  of  religion,  have  set  their  seal  of  decided  re- 
probation upon  the  new  version,  of  the  "  Bishop  of 
jBethany,"  all  his  converts  or  proselvtes,  as  a  matter  of 

*12 

I 


130 


DEBATE  OJf 


course,  receive  it  as  containing  the  lively  oracles  of 
Gad.  And  when  it  is  considered  that  he  boasts  of  his 
150,000  followers,  (the  most,  if  not  all  of  whom,  we  may 
conclude,  have  become  pmxhasers  of  his  New  Testa- 
ment,) and  the  increasing  progress  of  what  he  calls  the 
cause  of  reform,  it  cannot  but  be  perceived  what  a  strong 
temptation  was  presented  to  his  cupidity,  in  undertaking 
to  furnish  a  new  version.  The  facts  and  circumstances 
from  which  it  was,  and  still  is  inferred,  that  he  yielded 
to  the  temptation,  and  that  a  desire  to  make  money  was 
one  of  his  gOA'erning  motives  in  giving  to  the  world  his 
New  Testament,  I  shall  now  distinctly  present  to  view. 
Whether  they  will  prove  as  convincing  to  my  readers, 
as  they  evidently  did  to  a  great  majority  of  the  hearers, 
yet  remains  to  be  seen.  The  principal,  or  leading  fact, 
from  which  the  inference  just  stated  was  drawn,  was, 
that  whilst  in  defence  of  his  new  version,  and  in  justifi- 
cation of  his  own  conduct  in  reference  to  its  publication, 
he  labored  to  produce  a  conviction  in  the  minds  of  the 
audience,  that  the  old  version  was  very  defective  and 
erroneous;  and  that  the  cause  of  truth  and  the  salvation 
of  perishing  men,  called  loudly  for  a  new  version,  such 
as  his.  He  had  been  careful  to  secure  "  the  copy  right" 
to  himself  according  to  the  provisions  of  an  act  of  Con- 
gress, in  that  case  made  and  provided.  And  further, 
that  not  consent  with  the  profits  of  his  first,  he  had  con- 
tinued to  hold  on  to  the  same  right  in  the  publication  of 
his  second  edition.  From  which  it  evidently  appeared, 
that  however  important  to  the  cause  of  truth,  and  the 
salvation  of  souls,  he  deemed  his  version  of  the  New 
Testament  to  be,  still  he  would  rather  that  trath  should 
su^er  injury,  and  souls  perish  "  for  lack  of  knowledge," 
than  that  he  should  lose  his  profits  upon  the  work.  What 
would  have  been  thought,  and  what  would  not  have  been 
said,  and  that  too  by  Mr.  C.  himself,  had  the  translators 
of  the  Bible,  under  the  reign  of  king  James,  used  similar 
means  to  fine  their  pockets  as  a  reward  for  their  labors? 
This  strong  fact,  which  w^as  brought  out  in  full  relief  to 
public  \dew,  seemed  to  be  quite  unexpected  by  the 


CAMPBELLISM. 


131 


Bishop,  as  well  as  productive  of  some  perturbation  on 
his  part.  Prudence  prevented  him  I'rom  attempting  any 
justification  or  apology,  for  this  part  of  his  conduct.  In 
connection  with  this,  there  was  another  fact,  of  which  I 
was  not  then  in  possession;  had  it  then  been  disclosed,  I 
cannot  undertake  to  say  what  might  have  been  the  con- 
sequence in  reference  to  the  Bishop's  composure  of  mind, 
or  his  nervous  system. 

Whilst  Mr.  C.  lends  the  whole  weight  of  his  authority 
and  influence  in  circulating  the  slanders  fabricated  by 
the  enemies  of  truth,  against  the  American  Bible  Society, 
and  particularly  on  the  occasion  of  the  debate,  stated, 
that  he  had  seen  in  some  periodical,  (the  name  and  pub- 
lisher of  which  he  was  careful  to  withhold,)  a  statement 
by  some  writer  of  intelligence,  who  seemed  to  be  well 
acquainted  with  the  proceedings  of  the  Society,  that  the 
actual  cost  of  every  Bible  distributed,  or  put  gratuitously 
into  circulation  by  that  institution,  was  seven  dollars. 
And  while  the  American  Bible  Society  sell  the  whole 
Bible,  neatly  printed  and  well  bound,  as  low  as  fifty  or 
fifty  five  cents;  and  while,  in  consequence  of  their  bene- 
volent operations,  the  New  Testament  can  be  purchased 
from  twenty-two  down  to  twelve  cents  a  copy,  it  is  a 
fad.,  that  in  Nashville,  at  least,  the  new  version  of  the 
second  edition,  of  the  smallest  size  and  cheapest  mate- 
rials, is  retailed  at  one  hundred  and  twenty  cents  a  copy* 
When  we  see  the  enormous  profits  arising  from  the  pub- 
lication of  this  work,  all  flpwing  into  the  pockets  of  the 
Bishop  of  Bethany,  can  any  one  resist  the  conviction, 
that  his  principal  object  was  to  realize,  (as  he  must  al- 
ready have  done  from  this  and  his  other  pubKcations,) 
an  estate  of  no  trifling  magnitude?  As  corroborative  of 
the  inference  drawn  from  the  facts  above  stated,  I  would 
advert  not  only  to  the  circumstances  already  stated,  of  Mr. 
C.  lending  the  influence  of  his  pen  and  his  tongue*,  to  give 
currency  to  the  vile  slanders  that  are  from  time  to  time 

*  It  is  retailed  in  Pittsburgh  at  one  dollar  and  twenty-Jive  cents  p^r 
copy,  according  to  Mr.  C.'s  directions. — Ed. 


132 


DEBATE  ON 


propagated  against  the  American  Bible  Society,  as  well 
as  the  otiier  benevolent  institutions  which  exist  in  our 
country;  but  also  to  the  fact,  that  he,  as  well  as  many  of 
his  followers,  seize  with  greediness  every  occasion  that 
is  presented,  to  disparage  and  bring  into  disrepute,  th.e 
old  version;  and  especially  by  alhxing  thereto  the  apj  el- 
lation  of  "  the  king's  translation,"  and  to  the  learned  and 
pious  men,  who  executed  the  work  with  such  unparalleled 
fidehty  and  abihty,  that  of  the  "  knig's  translators."  He 
well  knows  how  to  take  advantage  of  the  prejudice  wh^'ch 
exists  in  the  minds  of  the  free-born  sons  of  the  United 
States,  against  that  which  savors  of  monarchy,  and  es- 
pecially that  of  Great  Britain,  by  which  we,  or  our 
fathers,  were  once  oppressed.  But  however  well  founded 
or  commendable  this  prejudice,  in  regard  to  politics  or 
government,  Mr.  C.  cannot  but  be  well  a^vare,  that  no 
substantial  objection  can  be  raised  against  the  old  version, 
because  it  was  prepared,  not  only  under  the  reign,  but 
the  immediate  direction  of  a  king.  If  this  were  indeed  a 
just  cause  for  such  objection,  it  might  with  equal  force 
be  alleged  against  the  Septuagint  translation  of  the  Old 
Testament  into  Greek,  (which  was  made  some  two  cen- 
turies before  the  birth  of  our  Saviour,  and  which  appears 
to  have  been  the  version  of  the  Old  Testament  scriptures, 
that  was  uniformly  quoted  by  him,  as  well  as  his  apostles,) 
for  this  translation  was  made  by  seventy  learned  Jews, 
in  pursuance  of  the  direction  or  command  of  one  of  the 
kings  of  Egypt.  What  then,  it  is  asked,  can  be  the  mo- 
tive of  Mr.  C.  in  thus  laboring  to  lessen  the  estimation  in 
which  the  old  version  is  held,  by  the  people  of  these 
United  States,  if  it  be  not  to  promote  the  sale  of  his  own 
wares,  and  thereby  to  increase  his  stores? 

In  detailing  the  series  of  proof,  relied  upon  to  show  the 
deception  practised  upon  the  pubHc  by  ]\Ir.  C,  in  the 
publication  of  his  new  version,  the  reader  is,  in  the  first 
place,  referred  to  the  title  page  of  the  work.  This  may 
w^ell  be  compared  to  a  false  sign  hung  out  at  the  door 
of  a  house  of  entertainment,  with  a  view  to  draw  in  cus- 
tomers.   It  is  well  known  that  the  great  mass  of  such  as 


CAMPBELLISM. 


133 


would  be  most  likely  to  purchase  this  new  version,  belong 
to  that  class  of  readers,  who  are  guided  in  forming  a 
judgment  concerning  the  books  they  purchase,  by  the 
title  they  bear.  Of  this  Mr.  C.  could  not  but  be  well 
aware,  and  he  knew  as  well  how  to  turn  it  to  his  advan- 
tage. The  title  page,  therefore,  of  his  version,  informs 
his  readers,  that  it  was  "translated  from  the  original 
Greek,  by  George  Campbell,  James  M'Knight,  and 
Philip  Doddridge,  Doctors  of  the  Church  of  Scotland;'* 
when  in  fact  Dr.  D.  was  an  English  Dissenter  and  a 
Congregationalist,  or  Independent,  in  principle,  and  in 
all  his  ecclesiastical  connection.  Here  we  are  at  once 
met  with  a  misrepresentation,  which  thousands  of  the 
readers  of  the  new  version,  would  not  be  possessed  of 
sufficient  information  to  correct.  And  the  only  excuse 
offered  by  Mr.  C,  (found  under  the  head  of  Errata,  or 
mistakes,  in  his  2d  edition  at  the  close  of  the  volume,)  is, 
that  "  since  the  publication'  of  the  first  edition,  he  had 
learned  that  P.  Doddridge,  D.  D.,  was  not  a  Presbyte- 
rian, but  a  Congregationalist,  or  a  Doctor  amongst  the 
English  Independents."  Upon  this  pitiful  excuse  for  a 
misrepresentation  of  a  fact,  which  when  properly  con- 
sidered, will,  it  is  behoved,  justly  affix  disgrace  to  the 
author  of  the  new  version,  it  is  very  obvious  to  remark, 
that  the  Bishop  of  Bethany  finds  himself  in  a  dilemma.  That 
his  veracity  and  integrity  may  not  be  impugned,  he  is  will- 
ing, nay  desirous,  that  his  readers  should  beheve  him  to  be 
very  ignorant,  notwithstanding  his  high  pretensions.  But 
admitting  that  Mr.  C.'s  knowledge  of  men  and  things, 
is  not  so  extensive  or  so  accurate  as  many  would  sup- 
pose, and  his  loud  sounding  pretensions  would  imply, — 
can  it  after  all  be  believed,  that  he  really  did  not  know, 
when  he  pubhshed  his  first  edition,  that  Phihp  Doddridge 
never  was  a  Doctor  of  the  church  of  Scotland?  The 
Bishop  of  Bethany,  a  native  of  Ireland,  and  educated  at 
one  of  the  colleges  or  universities  of  Scotland,  and  corb- 
versant  with  the  writings  of  Philip  Doddridge,  and  yet 
not  know  that  he  was  neither  a  Scotsman,  nor  a  Doctor  ^ 
of  the  Church  of  Scotland!    The  question  will  arise  in 


134 


DEBATE  Off 


the  mind  of  every  reader,  how  could  he  remain  ignorant 
of  the  fact?  Was  he,  it  is  again  asked,  ignorant  of  iii 
Credat  Judmis  Apelles!  But  if  Mr.  C.  did  not  know 
that  Philip  Doddridge  was  not  a  Doctor  of  the  church  of 
Scotland,  before  he  published  his  first  edition,  ought  he 
not,  and  had  he  been  actuated  by  that  regard  for  candor 
and  truth,  which  ought  to  characterize  every  author,  and 
especially  an  author  of  a  version  of  the  scriptures,  would 
he  not  have  taken  care  to  know  that  he  was  a  Doctor  of 
the  church  of  Scotland,  before  he  made  the  formal  asser- 
tion, as  contained  in  the  title  page?  It  would  require  a 
casuist,  such  as  the  Bishop  himself,  to  estimate,  in  point 
of  morality,  the  difference  between  a  wilful  assertion  of 
that  which  is  false,  and  a  formal  and  solemn  assertion  of 
a  thing  as  a  fact,  without  knowing  the  same  to  be  true. 
Nor  is  this  all;  if  it  were  a  mere  mistake  into  which  the 
Bishop  had  inadvertently  and  through  ignorance,  fallen, 
why  did  he  not  openly  and  candidly  correct  the  mistake 
in  the  2d  edition  of  his  version?  Why  did  he  still  retain 
the  assertion  in  the  title  page,  where  it  must  meet  the 
eye  of  every  reader,  after  he,  by  his  own  admission, 
knew  it  to  be  false,  whilst  he  attempts  to  save  apjiear- 
ances,  by  inserting  his  excuse  in  a  note,  that  by  hundreds 
of  his  readers  may  never  be  observed  ?  But  Mr.  C,  in 
the  conclusion  of  the  note  alluded  to,  has  given  his  own 
reason  for  this  procedure.  "  But,  (he  adds,)  as  the  Pres- 
byterians and  Congregationalists  in  this  country  do 
amalgamate  to  a  certain  extent,  the  differences  are  more 
nominal  than  real."  How  this  matter  stands,  will  be 
seen  in  the  sequel;  at  present,  it  would  seem  that  his  ex- 
planation amounts  to  this,  that  although,  in  the  first  edi- 
tion, he  made  a  reckless  assertion  in  violation  of  the 
truth,  yet  upon  the  whole,  it  was  in  relation  to  a  point 
which  he  deems  too  unimportant  to  require  correction. 

But  still  it  may  be  asked,  what  advantage  could  Mr, 
C.  hope  to  derive  from  the  alleged  misrepresentation? 
That  the  inquiry  is  worthy  of  attention,  is  frankly  ad- 
mitted; for  it  cannot  reasonably  be  supposed,  that  he 
would  wilfully  make  the  misrepresentation,  or  retain  it 


CAMPBELLISM, 


135 


after  hnoiinng  it  to  be  incorrect,  unless  he  supposed  there 
might  be  at  least  something  gained.  If  therefore  the  title 
page,  in  its  present  form,  is  calculated  to  help  the  sale  of 
his  book,  (and  who  can  say  it  is  not,)  there  is  at  once  a 
reason  that  will  suggest  itself  to  the  mind  of  every  one, 
why  the  misrepresentation  has  been  retained  by  Mr.  C. 
in  his  2d  edition.  But  there  is,  perhaps,  a  still  more  im- 
portant reason.  It  has  been  alleged  that,  notwithstand- 
his  strong  asseverations  to  the  contrary,  one  leading  ob- 
ject of  Mr.  C,  in  his  version,  is  to  support  his  own  sec- 
tarian or  party  views,  and  to  give  them  the  appearance 
of  being  supported  by  the  word  of  God.  Now  one  of 
the  positions  assumed  by  him,  in  support  of  his  views  is, 
that  the  Greek  word,  ekklesia,  translated  church,  in  our 
old  version,  ought  invariably  to  be  rendered  congi^ega- 
tion;  and  as  he  cites  Dr.  Doddridge  as  one  of  his  pre- 
tended authorities,  in  support  of  his  view  of  the  meaning 
of  this  word,  he  well  knew  how  much  seeming  strength 
his  testimony  would  derive,  if  it  had  the  appearance  of 
being  given  by  a  Presbyterian,  instead  of  a  Congrega- 
tionaUst.  It  is  well  known  to  all  who  are  acquainted 
with  the  sentiments  of  the  Independents,  or  Congrega- 
tionahsts,  and  those  of  Mr.  C,  that  however  widely  they 
may  difter  on  other,  and  more  important  points,  (and  that, 
notwithstanding  between  the  good  Dr.  D.  and  Mr.  C, 
there  is,  in  many  respects,  a  difference  as  great  as  that 
between  light  and  darkness,  or  truth  and  falsehood,)  still, 
with  regard  to  the  abstract  point  now  under  considera- 
tion, there  is  at  least,  to  some  extent,  a  similarity  of 
views.  The  opinion,  therefore,  of  Dr.  D.,  as  a  Congre- 
gationalist,  would  not  be  received  with  that  deference, 
to  which  it  would  be  entitled,  upon  the  supposition  that 
he  was  a  Presbyterian  in  sentiment;  as  in  that  case  it 
might  be  inferred,  he  had  been  guided  in  forming  his: 
judgment  by  the  force  of  truth  alone,  in  opposition  to  pre- 
conceived opinion,  or  sectarian  prejudice.  And  this  was 
the  more  important,  inasmuch  as  Mr.  C.  seems  not  to 
have  had  it  in  his  power  to  derive  even  the  show  of  as- 
sistance in  this  particular,  from  his  friend  Dr.  M' Knight, 


136 


DEBATE  Olf 


and  therefore  had  to  place  his  reliance  on  wliat  he  would 
wish  to  be  considered,  (not  indeed  a  three-fold,)  but  at 
least,  a  two-fold  cord.  But  to  effect  even  this,  Mr.  C.  was 
under  the  necessity  of  giving  an  unfair  and  garbled  re- 
presentation of  the  sentiments  of  Dr.  George  Campbell, 
in  relation  to  this  subject.  The  fact  is,  that  Dr.  C.  takes 
a  distinction  between  those  cases  where  the  word 
EKKLESiA,  is  uscd  to  signify  all,  without  exception,  to  the 
end  of  the  world,  who  have  believed,  or  shall  believe  on 
Jesus  Christ  to  the  saving  of  the  soul;  as  for  instance, 
where  it  is  said,  "  Christ  loved  the  church  and  gave  him- 
self for  it."  And  such,  where  the  same  word  is  used  to 
denote  a  single  assembly,  or  congregation  of  professed 
worshippers;  as  where,  (Matt.  18:17,)  it  is  said,  "if  he 
shall  neglect  to  hear  them,  tell  it  to  the  church.''*  In  the 
former  cases  he  w-ould  retain  the  translation,  as  it  is  in 
the  old  version,  in  the  latter,  he  is  of  opinion,  that  it 
would  be  more  correctly  rendered  "  congregation.''* 

The  discussion  of  the  merits  of  the  question  is  here 
purposely  avoided,  and  more  especially  as  they  were 
not  discussed  in  the  debate.  It  is  only  intended  to  con- 
sider the  subject,  so  far  as  is  deemed  necessary  to  expose 
the  deception  of  the  author  of  the  new  version,  in  im- 
posing that  work  upon  the  public,  under  the  authority  of 
names  whose  sentiments  he  has  garbled  and  misrepre- 
sented, to  promote  his  own  views. 

If  the  reader  should  entertain  any  doubts  concerning 
what  is  here  alleged  concerning  the  conduct  of  the 
Bishop,  he  is  requested  to  refer  to  the  appendix  Na  10, 
of  the  new  version;  and  in  connection  therewith  to  the 
note  of  Dr.  George  C,  upon  Matth.  18:17,  (a  part  only 
of  which  it  suited  the  purposes  of  Mr.  C.  to  quote,)  and 
he  will  have  his  doubts  removed.  In  the  commence- 
ment of  this  appendix  No.  10,  Mr.  C.  informs  his  readers 
that  "  wherever  the  word  Church  is  found  in  the  common 
version,  congregation  will  be  found  in"  the  new  version. 
"  We  shall  (he  adds)  let  Drs.  Campbell  and  Doddridge 
defend  this  preference.  For  although  they  have  not  al- 
ways so  rendered  it,  they  give  the  best  of  reasons  why 


CAMPBELLISM. 


137 


it  should  be  always  so  translated."  He  next  proceeds  to 
favor  his  readers  with  an  extract  from  a  note  by  Dr.  D., 
and  another  from  the  note  of  Dr.  C,  not  upon  the  pas- 
sage (Matth.  16:18,)  to  which  his  appendix  No.  10  refers, 
and  where  the  whole  body  of  Christ  is  spoken  of — but 
on  Matt.  18:17,  which  evidently  has  an  exclusive  rela- 
tion or  reference  to  a  single  church  or  congregation  of 
professed  worshippers.  The  concluding  part  of  the  note 
of  Dr.  C,  (which  it  did  not  suit  the  purpose  of  the  Bishop 
to  quote,)  not  only  shows  how  the  views  of  the  former  in 
relation  to  the  translation  of  the  word  ekklesia,  have 
been  garbled  and  misrepresented  by  the  latter;  but  also 
that,  contrary  to  what  every  reader  of  the  appendix  No. 
10,  who  was  not  informed  particularly  of  the  truth  of 
the  case,  would  conclude,  Dr.  C.  in  the  very  passage  to 
which  the  appendix  refers,  has  retained  the  word  church. 
In  addition  to  what  Mr.  C.  saw  proper  to  quote,  Dr.  C. 
adds:  "but  in  ch.  16:18,  where  our  Lord  manifestly  speaks 
of  all  without  exception,  who,  to  the  end  of  the  world, 
should  receive  him  as  the  Messiah,  the  Son  of  the  living 
God;  I  have  retained  the  word  churchy  as  being  there 
perfectly  unequivocal."  This  observation  would  seem 
to  commend  itself  to  the  understanding  of  every  person 
of  candor,  and  is  more  than  can  be  said  of  the  Bishop's 
translation  of  the  same  passage, — On  this  rock  I  will 
build  my  congregation," — the  question  arises  wdiat  con- 
gregation? The  term,  to  say  the  least  of  it,  is  undefined  and 
equivocal.  Not  the  translation  in  our  standard  version, 
**  On  this  rock  I  will  build  my  church."  Every  one  who 
has  any  knowledge  of  the  New  Testament,  at  once  un- 
derstands with  Dr.  C,  what  is  intended  here  by  the 
term  church,  even  the  whole  body  of  Christ  purchased 
by  his  blood. 

Notwithstanding  Mr.  C.  has  the  modest  assurance  to 
assert,  in  the  conclusion  of  the  appendix  No.  10,  "  there 
is  no  good  reason  given,  nor  can  there  be  any  produced, 
for  departing  in  any  instance,  irom  (what  he  modestly 
calls)  tlie  acknowledged  meaning  of  a  word  of  such  fre- 
quent occurrence,  and  more  especially  when  it  is  contetKl- 
13 


138 


DEBATE  O!^ 


ed  that  this  tenn  fitly  represents  the  original  one.  Th-s 
term  church  or  kirk  (he  adds)  is  aa  abbreviation  of  the 
word  [words]  kuriou  oikos,  the  house  of  the  Lord,  and 
does  not  translate  the  term  ekklesia.*' 

If  the  Bishop  means  that  the  word  churchy  as  au  abbre- 
viation of  the  Greek  words  which  signify  "  the  house  of 
the  Lord,"  does  not  liter alhj  translate  the  word  ekklesia^ 
he  says  that  which  is  correct;  but  if  he  means,  as  it  would 
seem  he  does,  that  it  does  not  (and  especially  in  reference 
CO  Matth.  16:18,  as  well  as  many  other  passages  which 
refer  to  the  church  which  Christ  loved,  and  purchased  with 
his  owQ  blood.)  give  the  true  meaning  of  the  original,  he 
is  most  manifestly,  not  to  say  perversely,  incorrect.  His 
position  is  indeed  so  directly  in  opjposition  to  the  truth,, 
that  it  is  fearlessly  affirmed  (for  it  is  as  wall  be  seeo 
presently.)  upon  divine  authority,  that  it  is  this  very 
Li-anslation,  which  removes  all  uncertainty  as  to  the 
meaning  of  the  term^  which  at  least  in  many  instances, 
must  attach  to  the  w^ord  congregation.  "  But  if  I  tarry 
long,  (said  the  apostle  in  his  first  letter  to  Timothy,)  that 
tiiou  mayest  know  how  thou  oughtest  to  behave  thyself 
in  the  house  of  God  (en  cmko  theou),  which  is  the  church. 
(L:Kklesia.)  of  the  living  God."  Thus  it  appears,  that 
the  translators  of  the  standard  version,  had  better  an- 
thiority  than  that  of  the  Bishop  of  Bethany  for  transla- 
ting the  tenn  eki^lesia,  and  especially  in  the  passage  in 
Matth>  16:18,  as  well  as  in  all  other  passages,  which  re- 
fer to  the  possessions  of  Christ,  by  a  word  which  signi- 
fies the  house  of  God. 

Tiie  deception  thus  practised  by  the  author  of  the  new 
version,  which  has,  it  is  conceived,  been  made  clearly  to 
apDear,.is  nevertheless  of  smaH  importance  compared  with 
what  yet  remains  to  be  exposed  to  view.  When  we 
consider  the  strong  asseverations  of  the  author,  contained 
]fr  hif>  preface,  that  in  putting  forth  his  version  he  had  no 
'o(\"/arian  object  in  view,  in  connection  with  the  humble 
T^relensions  of  the  title  page,,  which  professes  to  be  the 
tr-^i'sl^tiiovf  not  of  the  Bishop  of  Bethany,  but  of  three 
"  Doctors  of  the  Church  of  Scotland,"  it  could  not  have 


C'AMPBELLISM, 


139 


Been  supposed  that  their  authority  was  in  any  instance 
to  be  superseded  by  that  of  the  compiler,  or  that  his 
translation  was  to  be  substituted  for  theirs;  and  especially 
as  he  gives  no  intimation  of  any  such  procedure  even  in 
his  preface.  Yet  this  he  has  done  in  numerous  instances. 
If  it  be  alleged  that  he  has  a  right  so  to  do,  this  will  not 
excuse,  much  less  justify,  the  deception  practised  in  repre- 
senting the  whole,  as  the  translation  of  others  and  not  hjs 
own.  If  it  should  be  further  alleged  that  he  has  given 
his  readers  notice  of  the  alterations  made  in  the  transla- 
tion in  the  numerous  appendices  attached  to  the  work,  it 
is  asked  why  he  did  not  also  give  some  intimation  of  it  m 
the  title  page?  He  there  indeed  gives  notice  of  "  an  ap- 
pendix," but  it  is  such  a  notice  as  is  calculated  still  fur- 
ther to  deceive  the  unwary  in  relation  to  this  very  sub- 
ject. He  describes  the  appendix  as  "  containing  critical 
notes  and  various  translations  of  difficult  passages/'  but 
not  the  least  hint  is  given,  that  any  of  these  various  (or 
any  other)  translations  of  difficult  passages  are  transferred 
to  the  text,  and  substituted  for  the  translation  of  any  of 
his  three  authors.  And  who  does  not  believe,  or  rather 
feel  assured,  that  hundreds,  if  not  thousands,  have  read 
this  version,  without  ever  having  adverted  to  the  appert- 
dices,  in  such  manner  as  to  have  distinguished  between 
what  belongs  to  the  three  translators,  whose  names  hold 
so  conspicuous  a  place  in  the  title  page,  and  that  which 
has  been  introduced  upon  the  Bishop's  own  authority,  or 
foisted  into  the  text  from  other  translators,  and  which 
will  be  noticed  in  the  sequel. 

In  addition  to  the  numerous  alterations  already  noticed, 
not  only  of  our  standard  version,  but  of  the  versions  of 
his  own  translators,  made  by  Mr.  C.  upon  his  own  autho- 
rity, I  shall  notice  one  other,  of  still  more  importance,  as 
well  as  of  very  frequent  occurrence  in  the  new  version. 
The  alteration  alluded  to,  seems  to  be  so  well  calculated 
to  expose,  not  only  the  deception,  but  the  arrogance  of 
the  Bishop,  that  the  bare  recital  of  the  facts  and  circum- 
stances, connected  therewith  upon  the  occasion  of  the 
4ebate,  seemed  not  only  to  make  a  deep  impression  upon 


140 


DEBATE  OK 


the  audience,  but  even,  for  a  short  time,  at  least,  to  make 
the  author  himself  restless.  In  order  that  the  alteration, 
which  is  now  to  be  noticed,  may  be  viewed  in  a  proper 
light,  let  it  be  remembered  that  the  Christian  world  has  for 
centuries  been  divided,  and  no  doubt  honestly  and  sin- 
cerely divided  in  sentiment,  with  regard  to  what  was  the 
THode  of  baptism  originally  ordained  or  appointed  by  the 
great  Head  of  the  church,  and  that  this  diversity  of  senti- 
ment, has  arisen  chiefly  from  a  difference  of  opinion,  or 
judgment,  concerning  the  meaning  of  two  or  three  Idn- 
dred  words  in  the  original  language  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment. And  let  it  be  further  recollected,  that  there  have 
ever  been  many  men,  on  both  sides  of  this  disputed 
question,  equally  learned  and  pious,  and  who,  in  these 
particulars,  have  certainly  not  been  excelled  by  the 
Bishop  of  Bethany. 

In  such  case,  what  was,  and  still  continues  to  be  the 
duty  required  of  Christians,  whatever  may  be  their  pecu- 
liar sentiments  upon  this  subject,  and  however  well  they 
may  be  persuaded  in  their  own  minds,  (as  they  certainly 
ought  to  be,)  that  their  own  opinions  are  correct?  There 
would  seem  to  be  but  one  answer  to  this  inquir)^  that 
could  be  suggested  to  the  candid  and  huinbled  mind. 
The  duty  required  is  mutual  forbearance.  And  although 
it  has  happened,  as  it  ever  will,  among  imperfect  men, 
that  in  the  discussion  of  this  subject,  as  well  as  of  others 
connected  with  religion,  that  angry  disputations  have 
sometimes  arisen,  still  the  two  great  bodies  of  the  Chris* 
tian  world,  who  have  been  thus  long  divided,  have  never- 
theless  exercised  towards  each  other  a  good  degree  of 
forbearance  and  candor,  and  regarded  each  other  as 
brethren  in  Christ,  engaged  in  the  same  great  and  glori- 
ous cause,  and  journeying  to  the  same  heavenly  country* 
Again,  it  is  asked,  in  view  of  this  diversity  of  sentiment 
aunong  Christians,  what  was  the  duty  required  of  the 
translators  of  the  Bible,  that  produced  the  standard  ver- 
sion, to  which  all  sects  who  speak  the  English  language, 
have  so  long  appealed?  Could  it  have  been  considered 
expedient,  or  even  justifiable  ia  them,  whatever  may  have 


CAMPBELLISM. 


141 


been  their  own  private  opinions,  to  have  so  translated  the 
words  in  the  original,  already  alluded  to,  as  thereby  to 
decide  the  doubtful  and  long  disputed  question?  Would 
such  a  translation  have  been  the  result  of  candor,  impar- 
tiality, or  forbearance;  or  would  it,  as  has  the  present 
version,  served  as  the  g^ce  staridard,  to  which  all  sects  or 
denominations  could  with  confidence  appeal?  On  the 
contrary,  would  it  not  have  been  considered,  and  justly 
too,  even  by  the  candid  of  all  parties,  as  a  sectarian 
translation,  made  with  a  view  not  so  much  to  promote 
the  cause  of  truth  and  pure  religion,  as  the  view^s  and 
interests  of  some  predominant  party? 

It  is  evident  that  such  were  the  views  entertained  by 
the  translatoi*s  of  our  excellent  version,  and  therefore 
they  adopted  the  plan,  equally  wise  and  prudent,  of  mere- 
ly changing  the  Greek  terms  into  English,  leaving  it  to 
every  individual  Christian,  to  determine  for  himself= 
what  is  the  true  meaning  of  the  original  terms,  and  what 
the  true,  or  most  scriptural  mode  of  baptism.  The  wisdom 
and  prudence  of  this  measure,  have  jong  been  evinced,, 
not  only  by  the  fact,  that  ail  that  part  of  the  Protesta-nt 
Christian  world  who  speak  the  EngHsh  tongue,  have  a})- 
proved  of  it,  but  also  by  the  fact,  well  worthy  of  parti- 
cular notice,  that  no  translator  of  the  Bible,  or  New 
Testament,  or  compiler  of  any  new  version  of  either, 
since  the  completion  of  the  common  version,  and  before  the 
bold  Bishop  of  Bethany  appeared,  has  ventured  so  far  to 
brave  the  public  opinion  on  this  point;  or,  as  it  is  believed, 
has  thought  it  right  to  change  our  translation  in  tbis  paricu- 
lar,  whatever  his  own  sentiments  may  have  been,  or  how- 
ever confirmed  he  may  have  been  in  the  rectitude  of  hjs 
opinions.  This  bold  step,  it  well  became  the  Bishop  of  Beth- 
any to  take;  it  is  not  the  only  instance  in  which,  like  his 
brother  of  Rome,  he  has  assumed  infallibility  to  himself. 
Can  any  thing  be  even  conceived  of,  more  arrogant?  A  man, 
who,  as  an  author,  'professes  to  be  no  more  than  an  hun.  bie 
compiler  of  a  version  of  the  New  Testament,  from  the  works 
of  three  translators,  yet,  in  opposition  to  their  authority, 
and  by  his  own  individual  authority,  hesitates  not  to  make 

*  13 


142 


DEIBATE  ON 


an  alteration,  invohing  a  decision  of  a  question,  for  the 
whole  of  that  part  of  Protestant  Christendom  who  speak 
EngUsh,  upon  which  they  have  long  been  divided,  and 
for  a  satisfactory  decision  of  which,  the  united  wisdom 
of  Christians  could  neither  devise  any  method,  nor  erect 
any  tribunal.  And  yet  this  is  not  all,  nor  have  we  yet 
arrived  at  the  summit  of  this  man's  arrogance.  If  the 
views  of  Mr.  C.  concerning  the  nature  and  effect  of  bap- 
tism, accorded  with  those  of  the  various  sects  of  evange^ 
lical  Christians,  the  alteration  made  by  him,  in  his  ver- 
sion of  the  New  Testament,  so  as  to  make  baptism  cor>- 
clusively  to  mean,  and  to  be  vahd  only  when  performed 
by  irnmersion,  would  still  have  been  bold,  unprecedented, 
and  unwarrantable,  but  still  it  would  not  have  so  high  a 
degree  of  presumption  and  bigotry,  as  it  now  has,  when 
it  is  considered,  that  according  to  his  creed,  there  is  no 
forgiveness  for  such  as  have  not  been  immersed,  and 
that  immersion  is  the  only  means  of  washing  away  our 
sins.  It  is  then  fearlessly  asked,  if  the  Bishop  of  Bethany 
could  have  acted  more  in  the  style  of  a  Pope?  First  he 
decides,  without  hesitation,  a  question  that  has  for  many 
ages  divided  the  Christian  world,  and  then  suspends  the 
salvation  of  the  soul,  or,  which  is  the  same  thing  in  sub- 
stance, the  forgiveness  of  sins  and  acceptance  with  God, 
upon  an  implicit  acquiescence  in  his  decision.  Mr.  C 
seems  to  have  been  in  some  measure  aware  of  the  bold- 
ness of  the  step  he  was  about  to  take,  or  at  least  that  it 
would  justly  be  thus  deemed  by  the  community  at  large, 
and  that  some  apoIog\'  or  justification  of  his  conduct 
would  be  needed.  He  therefore,  in  his  app.  Na  4,  makes 
a  declaration,  (whether  the  reader  may  believe  it  or  not,) 
in  the  presence  of  Him  who  searches  the  heart,  (in  plain 
lang^uasre,  he  takes  a  solemn  and  voluntary  oath,)  "  that 
no  interest,  inducement,  or  consideration,  could,  in  an 
undertaking^  so  solemn  and  responsible,  as  that  in  which** 
he  was  eii^aixed,  cause  him  "  to  depart  in  the  least  re- 
spect from^what"  he  believed  '*  to  be  the  meaning  of  the 
sacred  penmen." 
Upon  this,  it  is  very  obvious,  in  the  first  place^  to  re- 


CAMPBELLISM. 


143 


mark,  that  it  must  afford  a  strong  ground  to  suspect  the 
honesty  of  any  man,  if  he  begins  to  excuse,  and  especially 
il'  he  attempts  to  purge  himself  upon  oath,  before  he  19 
accused  of  any  cnnie.  What  would  have  been  thought, 
and  whai  would  not  the  Bishop  himself  have  said  of  the 
king's  translators,  had  they  pursued  a  similar  course, 
instead  of  honestly  and  conscientiously  performing  the 
work  assigned  them,  and  leaving  the  result  of  their  la- 
bors to  commend  itself  to  every  man's  judgment  and  con- 
science, as  in  the  sight  of  God." 

But  the  inquiry  very  naturally  arises,  was  Mr.  C.  under 
any  necessity  to  make  tliis  alteration  in  the  translatioD 
of  the  New  Testament,  to  avoid  a  departure  "  in  the  least 
respect,  from  what  he  professed  to  believe  to  be  the 
meaning  of  the  sacred  penmenf"  If  so,  he  is  not  with- 
out excuse.  But  such  was  evidently  not  the  case.  Al- 
though the  words  baptize  and  baptism,  adopted  by  the 
translators  of  our  version,  do  not  explain,  they  certainly 
do  not  "  depart  in  the  least  respect,"  from  "  the  meaning 
of  the  sacred  penmen."  That  is  purposely  left  to  he 
sought  after  by  eveiy  serious  inquirer  for  the  truth;  but 
tliis  did  not  suit  the  views  of  Mr.  C,  who,  according  to 
his  own  showing,  began,  about  the  time  he  prepared  his 
new  version,  to  feel  the  importance,  and  to  practise  upon 
the  tendencies  of  the  doctrine  of  immersion  for  the  re- 
mission of  sins,  or  the  only  means  of  obtaining  a  "  change 
from  the  state  of  condemnation  to  the  state  of  favor" 
with  God;  and  therefore  it  became  necessary,  or  at  least 
expedient,  in  his  view,  to  estabhsh  by  his  decree,  what 
should  thenceforth  be  held  as  the  true  signification  of 
words,  whose  meaning  had  so  long  been  a  matter  of 
doubtful  disputation.  That  the  reader  may  see  that  this 
is  according  to  Mr.  C.'s  ow^n  showing,  he  is  referred  to 
the  M.  Harbinger,  Extra,  No.  1,  p.  .50,51.  "We  can 
sympathise,  (says  the  Editor,)  wdth  those  who  have  this 
doctrine,  (i.  e.  the  doctrine  above  described,)  in  their 
own  creeds,  unregarded  and  unheeded  in  its  import  and 
utility,  for  we  exhibited  it  fully  in  our  debate  witJi  Mr. 
M'Calla,  1823,  without  feeling  its  great  importance,  and 


144 


DEBATE  OTH 


without  beginning  to  practise  upon  its  tendencies,  for 
some  time  afterwards.  But  since  it  lias  been  fully 
preached  and  practised  upon,  it  has  proved  itself  to  he 
all  divine."  This  statement  or  confession,  is  deemed  to 
be  quite  important  in  more  respects  than  one,  in  relation 
to  the  present  discussion,  and  the  reader  is  requested  so 
to  notice  it,  that  he  may  not  only  fully  comprehend  its 
bearing,  but  that  it  may  without  difficulty  be  referred  to 
when  occasion  shall  require.  At  present,  it  is  only 
necessary  farther  to  remark,  that  a  comparison  of  the 
date  of  Mr.  C.'s  controversy  with  Mr.  M'Calla,  with 
that  of  the  preface  to  his  first  edition  of  the  new  version, 
will  establish  what  has  been  advanced  concerning  tlie 
coincidence  of  the  adoption  of  the  new-fangled  doctrine 
nick-named  "  the  ancient  gospel,"  and  the  preparation 
of  the  patched  version,  evidently,  as  it  would  seem,  with 
a  view  to  support  it. 

But  Mr.  C.  pleads  the  authority  of  tw^o  of  his  "  Pres- 
b3.1;erian  Doctors,"  in  justification  of  this  alteration  of 
the  old  version.  "  Drs.  Campbell  and  M'Knight,  have  not 
only  occasionally  translated  baptismos  and  baptisma,  by 
the  word  immersion,  but  have  contended  in  their  notes 
that  such  is  its  [their]  meaning."* 

What  judgment  will  the  reader  form,  not  merely  of 
the  candor,  but  of  the  veracity  of  Mr.  C,  when  he  is  in- 
formed, that  after  a  careful  examination  of  every  pas- 
sage in  the  epistles,  (the  books  of  the  New  Testament 
translated  by  Dr.  M'Knight.)  there  is  not  found  one  in- 
stance of  a  translation  of  either  of  the  Greek  words  con- 
tained in  the  foregoing  quotation,  by  the  word  immersion, 
nor  one  instance  in  which  the  Greek  verb  baptizo,  or 
any  of  its  variations,  is  translated  by  the  word  immeise. 

The  only  ground  which  the  Bishop  seems  to  have  had 
for  the  above  assertion,  so  far  as  it  relates  to  the  transla- 
tion by  Dr.  M'Knight,  of  the  words  baptismos  and  bap- 
tisma, by  the  word  immersion,  is  his  commentary  upon 
1  Cor.  15:29.    Both  the  translation  and  commentary  are 


•  See  app.  to  the  new  version.  No.  4 


CAMPBELLISM. 


145 


here  given,  that  the  reader  may  see  upon  what  slender 
grounds  Mr.  C.  can  make  a  round  assertion,  when  it 
suits  his  purpose.  The  translation  reads  thus :  "  Other- 
wise what  shall  they  do  who  are  baptized  (uper  ton 
ffEKRON,  supply  ANASTASEOs,)  for  the  resurrection  of  the 
dead,  if  the  dead  rise  not  at  all?  and  why  are  they  bap- 
tized (uper  ton  nekron,)  for  the  resurrection  of  the 
dead?"  The  commentary  upon  this  verse  is  as  follows : 
— I  told  you,  ver.  22,  That  by  Christ  all  shall  be  made 
alive  :  and  ver.  25,26,  That  he  must  reign  till  death,  the 
last  enemy,  is  destroyed  by  the  resurrection,  otherwise 
what  shall  they  do  to  repair  their  loss,  who  are  immersed 
in.  sufferings  for  testifying  the  resurrection  of  the  dead,  if 
tJie  dead  rise  not  at  all  1  And  what  inducement  can  they 
have  to  suffer  death  for  believing  the  resurrection  of  the 
dead  V*  Further  remarks  upon  this  part  of  the  Bishop's 
assertion,  or  plea  in  justification  of  his  conduct,  are 
deemed  unnecessary.  A  discerning  public  cannot  but 
see  that  here  is  a  clear  development  of  a  part  of  thai 
system  of  deception  which  he  has,  by  means  of  his 
tjersumy  practised  upon  the  pubHc.  Nor  is  that  part  of 
his  assertion,  which  relates  to  the  translation  of  Dr. 
George  Campbell,  less  calculated  to  deceive,  than  th^i 
which  has  already  been  considered,  notwsthstanding  it 
is  literally  true,  that  he  has  "  in  some  instanccs,^^  translat- 
ed the  Greek  words  above  mentioned,  by  the  word  im- 
.mersion.  This  part  of  the  Bishop's  assertion,  is  like  the 
testimony  of  a  witness  who  tells  the  truth,  but  not  the 
tDhole  truth.  The  deception  practised  by  this  part  of  tlie 
•  assertion  consists  in  this,  that  it  is  evidently  designed  to 
make  tlie  impression  upon  the  minds  of  the  readers,  that 
Dr.  George  C.  has  occasionally  translated  the  words  al- 
luded to,  by  the  word  immersion,  when  they  were  used 
by  the  sacred  writers,  literally  to  denote  the  ordinance  of 
baptism.  Now  such  is  not  the  fact — it  is  only  w^hen 
they  are  used  fguratively,  as  where  our  Saviour  declares, 
(Luke  12:50,)  "I  have  a  baptism  to  be  baptized  with," 
that  Dr.  George  C.  translates  the  Greek  words  bap- 
TiSMos  or  baptisma,  by  the  word  immersion,  or  the  Greek 


DEBATE  ON 


verb  of  a  kindred  meaning,  by  the  English  verb  immer^, 
I  wish  it  to  be  distinctly  understood,  that  it  is  not  intend- 
ed here,  or  in  any  part  of  this  work,  to  discuss  the  ques- 
tion, what  is  the  true  or  most  scriptural  mode  of  baptism? 
TJiis  is  a  family  dispute  between  the  evangelical  pcedo 
baptists  and  anti-pcedo  baptists,  which  I  do  not  wish  to 
agitate.  The  object  at  present,  as  before  stated,  is  to  ex- 
pose the  deception  practised  by  him,  in  giving  his  own 
views  in  his  new  version,  under  the  imposing  authority  of  i 
other  names.  And  if  in  quoting  from  the  dissertations  of  | 
Dr.  George  Campbell,  vol.  2,  p  23,  he  had  not  given  in 
his  App.  (No.  4,)  to  the  new  version,  a  garbled  extract, 
his  readers  must  have  discovered,  that  it  is  a  wilful  mis- 
representation of  the  views  of  the  author  of  the  transla- 
tion of  the  gospels,  to  plead  him  as  an  authority  for 
translating  the  words  baptismos  and  baptism  a,  by  the  word 
immersion,  in  any  instance  where  either  of  them  is  used 
by  any  of  the  sacred  writers  to  denote  literally  the  ordi- 
nance of  baptism.  In  addition  to,  and  immediate^  fol- 
lowing that  part  of  the  dissertation  quoted  by  the  Bishop, 
it  is  added,  "  But  we  are  not."  that  is,  we  are  not  now,  at 
liberty  to  make  a  choice  of  the  word  immersion,  in  pre- 
ference to  baptism.  **  The  latter  term,  (i.  e.  baptism, 
continues  Dr.  George  C.,)  has  been  introduced,  and  luis 
obtained  the  universal  suffrage  ;  and  though  to  us,  not  so 
expressive  of  the  action,  yet,  as  it  contains  nothing /fl&e, 
or  unsuitable  to  the'  primitive  idea,  it  has  acquired  a 
right  by  prescription,  and  consequently  is  entitled  to  the 
preference."  This  part  of  the  dissertation,  though  in- 
timately connected  with  the  subject  of  which  the  Bishop 
was  treating,  he  did  not  see  proper  to  quote,  although  he 
could  not  but  have  seen  that  by  withholding  it  from  his 
readers,  he  w^as  doing  injustice  to  Dr.  George  C,  and  at 
tlie  same  time  deceiving  them  with  regard  to  what  were 
his  views  in  relation  to  the  propriety  of  translating  the 
Greek  words  before  mentioned,  by  the  word  immei^ixm.,  m 
instead  of  the  word  baptism.  ^ 

If  any  should  inquire  why  Dr.  George  C.  translates 
tbe  Greek  words  alluded  to,\vhen  used  figuratively,  by 


CAMPBELLISM. 


147 


the  word  immersion^  they  are  referred  to  the  reason  as- 
signed by  himself,  vol.  4,  p.  128,  and  quoted  by  Mr. 
in  his  app.  No.  4,  already  referred  to.  Whether  his 
c^)inion  be  correct  or  incorref;t,  it  is  not  intended  now  to 
inquire.  "  The  primitive  signification,  (says  Dr.  C.,)  of 
BAPTiSxMA,  is  immersion;  of  baptizein,  to  immerse,  jplunge^ 
or  overu  helm.  The  noun  ought  never  to  be  rendered 
baptism,  nor  the  verb  to  baptize,  but  when  employed  in 
relation  to  a  religious  ceremony."  The  only  part  then 
of  the  Bishop's  assertion,  relating  to  the  authority  of  two 
of  his  Presbyterian  Doctors,  is  that  which  alleges  that 
they  have  contended  that  the  meaning  of  the  Greek 
words,  so  frequently  alluded  to,  is  immersion.  Had  he 
contented  himself  with  making  the  most  of  their  authori- 
ty, in  relation  to  the  point  of  the  true  meaning  of  the 
original  words,  (as  he  certainly  had  a  right  to  do,)  he 
would  certainly  have  had  a  better,  or  at  least,  a  mom 
plausible  claim,  to  an  honesty  of  purpose,  than  can  by 
any  ingenuity  be  urged  under  existing  circumstances. 

It  cannot  be  expected  that  all  the  rottenness  of  the 
new  version,  should  he  exposed  in  a  publication  such  as 
this,  but  there  is  one  other  part  of  the  system  of  decep- 
tion practised  by  its  author,  which  must  yet  be  noticed. 
What  is  here  alluded  to,  is  the  fact  that  in  very  numer- 
ous instances,  Mr.  C.  has  foisted  into  the  text,  the  tran- 
slation by  others,  of  many  important  passages,  and  to  the 
manifest  perversion  of  the  truth  of  God,  instead  of  the 
rendering  of  the  three  translators,  from  the  result  of 
whose  labors,  it  pui'jwrts  to  be  a  compilation.  Although 
this  was  brought  out  fully  to  view,  and  distinctly  pre- 
sented for  the  consideration  of  the  Bishop,  as  well  as  the 
audience,  upon  the  occasion  of  the  debate,  and  notwith- 
standing it  evidently  made  no  slight  impression  upon 
the  minds  of  a  majority  of  the  numerous  assembly  then 
present,  his  ingenuity  did  not  seem  to  furnish  him  with 
any  apology  or  justification,  for  this  part  of  his  proce- 
dure. Indeed,  it  would  seem  to  have  been  impossible  for 
him  to  have  given  any  other  explanation  of  the  motives 
by  which  he  was  actuated,  than  that  contained  in  the 


148 


DEBATE  Oir 


obscure  intimation  which  he  gives  his  readers  of  the 
fact,  in  his  pretace.  "  All  (says  Mr.  C.)  that  we  can  l>e 
praised  or  blamed  for,  is  this  one  circumstance,  that  we 
have  given  the  most  conspicuous  place,  (i.  e.  in  the  text,) 
to  that  version  which  appeared  to  deserve  it."*  True. 
And  whilst  this  is  no  doubt  the  very  thing,  or  at  least 
one  of  the  many  things,  for  which  the  schismatics,  hero- 
tics,  Arians  and  freethinkers,  of  our  country,  laud  tie 
pew  version,  it  is,  in  the  view,  not  only  of  all  ^ofess- 
ing  evangelical  Christians,  but  also  of  the  great  mass  of 
the  population  of  our  country  who  reverence  divine 
truth,  one  of  the  things  for  which  he  deserves  reprehen- 
sion. Mr.  C.  indeed  endeavors  to  shield  himself,  by  add- 
in^  to  w^hat  has  been  quoted  above,  "  But  as  the  reader 
will  have  both  (versions)  we  have  not  judged  for  him, 
but  left  him  to  judge  for  himself." 

If  so,  why  did  he  not  give  his  readers  the  versions  of 
others  (if  he  thought  there  must  needs  be  a  collation  of 
different  translations)  in  his  notes  or  appendices  instead 
of  foisting  them  into  the  text,  to  the  falsification  of  his 
title  page  and  the  deception  of  all  that  numerous  class  of 
his  readers,  who,  he  must  have  been  well  aware,  would 
look  no  further  than  the  text.  Nor  is  this  all.  If  he  did  not 
wish  to  judge  for  his  readers,  why  did  he  not  give  them 
some  information  concerning  these  other  translators, 
whose  renderings  of  important  passages  he  had  intro- 
duced into  the  text.  Of  the  ^'Presbyterian  Doctors"  las 
speaks  much,  but  concerning  the  other  translators,  whose 
versions  he  frequently  prefers,  he  is  silent — as  the  grave- 
These  remarks  are  made  especially  in  allusion  to  one  of 
his  Extra  translators,  (Thompson,)  of  whose  labors  he 
has  made  the  more  frequent  and  liberal  ase.  Whatever 
may  have  been  his  professed  or  private  sentiments,  or  his 
supposed  qualifications  as  a  translator,  it  must  be  evident 
to  every  one  that  carefully  examines  interpolations  from 
his  renderings  that  are  found  in  the  new  version,  that 
Thompson's  translation  of  the  Bible  is  calculated,  if  not 


■  See  the  preface  to  the  new  version,  pag^e  13. 


CAMPBELLISM. 


140 


expressly  designed,  to  favor  the  Arian  and  Unitarian 
schemes  of  doctrine.  And  in  further  illustration  and 
proof  of  the  position  already  assumed,  that  one  leading 
design  of  Mr.  C.  in  giving  to  the  public  his  new  version, 
evidently  was  to  give  his  own  new-fangled  scheme  of 
salvation,  the  appearance  of  being  supported  by  the  word 
of  God,  some  of  the  interpolations  alluded  to,  I  shall  now 
notice  more  particularly. 

As  has  already  been  observed  in  a  former  part  of  tins 
work,  the  sentiments  of  the  Bishop  of  Bethany  in  relation 
to  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  and  the  supreme  and  abso- 
lute divinity  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  as  the  second  of 
the  three  persons  in  the  Godhead,  which  constitutes  the 
One  living  and  true  Jehovah,  have  become,  and  especially 
since  his  altercation  with  the  Rev.  Mr.  Jamieson  of  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  church,  too  well  known  to  admit 
any  longer  of  any  doubt.  The  passages  therefore  intro- 
duced by  Mr.  C.  into  the  text  of  his  new  version  from 
Thompson's  translation,  which  I  shall  first  notice,  are 
such  as  were  evidently  designed  to  favor  his  views  in 
relation  to  that  most  important  doctrine.  There  are,  it 
is  believed,  but  three  instances  in  the  old  version  of  the 
New  Testament,  where  the  word  Godhead  occurs.  The 
first  is  Acts  17:29,  and  the  original  word  thus  translated, 
is  THEioy,  which  Dr.  Macknight  translates  "  the  DeityJ''' 
His  rendering  is  retained  by  Mr.  C.  The  second  in- 
stance in  which  the  word  Godhead  occurs  in  our  standard 
version  is  Rom.  1:20.  The  original  term  is  theiotes, 
which  Dr.  Macknight  has  with  the  ti»anslators  of  the  old 
version  rendered  Godhead,  which  term  the  Bishop  has 
superseded  in  his  version  by  the  word  Divinity,''^  taker* 
from  Thompson.  The  third  instance  alluded  to  is  in 
Col.  2:9.  "  For  in  him  dwelleth  all  the  fulness  of  the 
Godhead  bodily,"  which  accords  with  the  translations  of 
Macknight  and  Doddridge,  as  also  the  Vulgate.  The 
original  word  here  translated  Godhead,  is  theotes,  the 
meEining  is  so  nearly  related  to,  or  rather  so  identical 
with  the  original  word,  similarly  rendered  in  Rom.  1:20, 
that  it  would  be  difficuh  to  assign  any  sufficient  reason 
14 


no 


I>SBUTK  Off 


for  giving  one  a  different  rendering  from  the  other,  or 
for  substituting  in  either,  another  translation,  in  place  of 
that  found  in  the  old  version.    Mr,  C.  nevertheless  has^ 
ia  this  instance,  as  well  as  in  that  last  mentioned,  givea 
tke  preference  to  Thompson,  and  made  the  text  read 
thus:  "  Because  all  the  fulness  of  the  deiti/  resides  substan^ 
tially  in  him."    According,  then,  to  his  view  of  these  pas- 
sages, he  has  given  the  most  conspicuous  place  to  the 
li'anslation  of  Thompson*  8,s  being  most  deserving  of  it. 
But  why,  let  it  be  asked,  does  Mr.     manifest  such  dislike 
to  the  word  Godhead?   Why  does  he  altogether  exclude 
it  from  his  version?  Why,  in  opposition  to  the  authority  ot 
two  of  his  Pi^shiiterian  Doctors^  does  he  prefer  the 
rendering  of  Thompson?  It  is  left  to  the  candid  reader 
to  judge,  whether  it  be  not  because  the  term  Godhead  is 
too  emphatic  and  unequivocal,  and  savors  too  niuch  of 
orthodoxy;  because  it  evidently  has  an  allusion  to,  and 
embraces  the  "  three  that  bear  record  in  heavenJ*  In 
plain  language,  it  too  clearly  refers  to  the  doctrine  of  the 
trinity,  or  that  of  tlie  triune  Jehovah,,  to  suit  the  views  of 
Mr.  C.    And  what  is  still  more,  it  too  clearly  aiid  fully 
asserts  (!n  CoL  2:9,)  the  doctrine  of  the  supreme  divinity 
of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  to  be  retained  in  the  riew  ver&ioju 
If  it  should  be  alleged  by  Mr.  C,  tliat  the  words  " 
fy"  and  "  deity,^^  are  synonymous  with  Godhead;  the  ob- 
vious reply  would  be,  why  then  was  not  this  word,  which 
had  so  long  been  sanctioned  by  usage  as  well  as  the  best 
authorities,  retained?  The  truth  is,  that  although  the  word 
Godhead,  expresses  all  that  is  contained  in  the  words 
divinity  and  Deity,  it  expresses  more,  and  is  also  more 
unequivocal  in  its  meaning,  at  least  in  the  view  of  a  hfgh 
Arian,  as  well  as  a  modern  Unitarian.    These  ascribe 
some  kind  of  inferior  deity  to  the  Saviour;  and  admit 
that  he  is  in  some  sense  Divine.    But  to  admit  that  he  is 
equal  to  and  one  with  the  Father, — that  he  is  one  of  three 
persons  in  the  one  Godhead,  and  that  in  him  dwelleth  all 
the  fulness  of  the  Godhead  bodily''  \\.  e.  fully  as  well  as 
tr!ilv)  and  consequently  that  he  "  is  over  all  God  blessed 
forever,"  would  be  to   honor  tJhe  Son"  as  we  honor  the 


CAMPBELLI&M* 


161 


Father, — this  they  are  unwilHng  to  <io;  and  hence,  it  is 
believed,  may  be  discovered  the  true  reason  of  the  pre- 
ference given  by  Mr.  C.  to  Thompson,  in  the  instances 
already  described. 

There  yet  remains  to  be  noticed,  another  class  of  inter- 
polations, from  Thompson,  found  in  the  neio  version,  per- 
haps more  evidently  in  opposition  to  the  mind  of  the 
Spirit  of  God,  as  revealed  in  the  Nev^  Testament,  tham 
those  already  remarked  upon.  It  is  well  known  that  thp 
Bishop,  not  only  denies,  but  ridicules  the  doctrine  of 
divine  influence,  or  the  special  operation  of  the  Spirit  of 
God  upon  the  mind  or  heart  of  man,  in  the  great  work 
of  the  regeneration  and  sanctification  of  a  sinner.  His 
new-fangled  scheme,  made  up  of  the  shreds  of  errors, 
old  and  new,  together  with  some  patches  of  Popish  mys- 
ticism, teaches  men  to  believe  that  the  Spirit  of  God,  is 
in  the  word,  and  that  thus,  and  thus  only,  was  the  Holy 
Spirit  sent  into  the  world.  That  consequently  the  word 
of  God  has  in  itself  the  inherent  power,  wlien  historically 
believed,  provided  it  is  rendered  efiectual  by  immersion, 
of  regenerating  and  sanctifying  the  soul,  so  that  the  sub- 
ject of  this  historic  belief,  and  consequent  immersion,  is 
thereby  "  pardoned,  adopted,  justified,  sanctified  and 
saved." 

The  interpolations  now  to  be  noticed,  seem  clearly  to 
have  been  intended  by  the  author  of  the  new  version,  to 
support  his  delusive  scheme,  and  to  oppose  the  doctrine 
of  divine  influence,  as  held  by  the  churches  of  evangeli- 
cal Christians,  and  as  they  believe,  revealed  and  taught 
in  the  word  of  God.  Thus  it  is  distinctly  declared  by 
two  apostles,  (2  Thess.  2:13,  and  1  Pet.  1:2,)  that  such  as 
be  saints,  are  chosen  unto  salvation  "  through  sanctifica- 
tion of  the  Spirit,"  &c.  But  Mr.  C,  w^ho  is  determined 
to  exclude  all  special  agency,  or  operation  of  the  Spirit 
of  God,  in  this  matter,  has  substituted  the  renderings  of 
Thompson  in  both  these  passages,  so  that  they  read  thus  : 
"  thro7igh  a  sanctification  of  the  spirit."  The  alteration 
may  seem  of  little  importance  to  the  inattentive  reader, 
but  it  nevertheless  strikes  at  the  vitals  of  tlie  religion  of 


152 


DEBATE  ON 


Christ.  It  excludes,  or  at  least,  is  designed  to  exclude 
the  agency  of  the  Holy  Spirit  in  the  great  work  of  sanc- 
tification,  and  to  lead  men  to  rest  upon  the  efficacy  of 
water  to  wash  away  their  sin.  According  to  the  render- 
ing of  Thompson,  as  thus  preferred  by  Mr.  C,  we  are 
clearly  to  understand  by  the  word  sph'it,  the  soul  of  the 
person  sanctified,  instead  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  by  whom 
this  good  work  is  begun  and  performed,  until  the  day  of 
Jesus  Christ.  Another  interpolation,  constituting  a  still 
more  palpable  perversion  of  the  sacred  text,  is  found  in  the 
epistle  of  Jude,  (ver.  20,)  where  the  rendering  of  the 
translators  of  our  standard  version,  "  praying  in  the  Holy 
Ghost"  and  that  of  Dr.  Macknight,  *' praying  by  the  Holy 
Spirit/'  are  superseded  by  Mr.  C,  to  make  room  for  the 
translation  of  Thompson,  which  reads  thus  :  "  Praying 
with  a  holy  spirit.^^  According  to  this  rendering,  we  are 
not  to  understand  the  apostle  as  directing  the  saints  to 
pray  in  or  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  who,  it  is  declared,  helps 
ttieir  infirmities,  but  as  instructing  them  to  pray  with  a 
sanctified  heart.  I  am  aware  that  it  is  pleaded  by  the 
author  of  the  new  version,  as  well  as  others,  who,  like 
him,  wish  as  much  as  possible,  to  exclude  the  special 
agency  of  the  Holy  Spirit  in  bringing  a  sinner  into  favor 
with  God,  and  preparing  him  for  heaven,  that  in  the  pas- 
sages cited,  as  well  as  others  of  a  similar  character,  the 
Greek  article  is  not  prefixed  to  the  word  translated  spirit^ 
as  is  the  case  in  Rom.  8:26,  and  other  passages  where 
the  Holy  Spirit  is  clearly  referred  to;  and  therefore  it  is 
said,  that  inasmuch  as  the  original  word  (pneuma,)  has 
various  significations,  we  are  to  understand  it  in  those 
passages  where  the  article  is  omitted,  as  referring,  not 
to  the  Spirit  of  God,  but  to  the  soul  of  man,  the  air,  or 
wind,  as  the  case  may  be.  However  plausible  this  argu- 
ment may  appear,  it  is  apprehended  to  be  utterly  falla- 
cious. Learned  critics,  (among  whom  is  Dr.  George 
Campbell,  the  Magnus  Apollo  of  the  Bishop  of  Bethany,) 
have  shown  that  this  pretended  rule  of  distinction,  in  re- 
lation to  the  meaning  of  the  word  pjjeuma,  will  not,  in 
many  cases,  hold  or  apply.    And  Dr.  Campbell,  more- 


CAMPBi2LL!SM> 


153 


over,  contends,  and  that  too  with  a  force  that  will  carry- 
conviction  to  the  mind  of  every  serious  and  candid  in- 
quirer for  truth,  that  especially  in  those  instances  where 
the  word  agio  (holy)  is  prehxed  to  the  word  pneuma,  as 
is  the  case  in  Jude,  (ver.  20,)  it  is  a  much  more  clear  de- 
signation of  the  S})irit  of  God,  than  is,  in  any  instance, 
the  prefixed  article.  Nor  need  we  go  further  than  the 
next  preceding  (19th)  verse  of  this  same  epistle,  to  de- 
monstrate the  futility  of  the  alleged,  and  every  argument 
that  has  been  attempted  therefrom  to  be  deduced.  In 
ver.  18,  the  apostle  speaks  of  mockers  that  should  appear 
in  the  last  time.  "  These,  (he  adds  ver,  19,)  be  they  who 
separate  themselves,  sensual,  having  not  the  Spirit."  In 
this  passage  the  article,  in  the  original  Greek,  is  not  pre- 
fixed, and  yet  it  is  so  evident  that  the  sacred  penman 
alludes  not  to  the  soul,  but  to  the  Spirit  of  God;  that 
Thompson  was  compelled  to  translate  the  word  pneuma, 
the  Spirit,^^  and  not  merely  "  spirit"  or  "  the  spirit," 
or  " a  spirit"  as  we  have  seen  he  does  in  the  next  verse, 
and  that  too  notwithstanding  the  word  holy  (the  special 
designation  of  the  Spirit  of  God,)  is  prefixed.  And  that 
which  renders  the  departure  from  tlie  meaning  of  the 
apostle,  in  the  20th  verse,  by  Thompson  and  his  copyist 
Mr.  C.,  the  more  palpable  and  unjustifiable,  is  the  con- 
trast which  is  here  evidently  designed  to  be  exhibited, 
between  the  saints  and  the  mockers  there  described. 
These  hav^e  not  the  Spirit;  they  are  a  constituent  part  of 
the  world  which  "  cannot  receive  the  Spirit  of  truth," 
because  "  it  seeth  him  not,  neither  knoweth  him."  Not 
so  the  saints,  "  They  know"  him,  for  he  dwelleth  with 
"  them,"  and  shall  be  in  "  them."*  Hence  the  apostle 
adds,  (ver.  20,21,)  "But  ye  beloved,  (seeing  that  God 
hath  sent  forth  the  spirit  of  his  Son  into  your  hearts, 
crying  Abba  Father,  and  you  have  received  him  as  the 
Spirit  of  truth,)  building  up  yourselves  in  your  most  holy- 
faith,  praying  in  (or  by)  the  Holy  Ghost,iieep  yourselves 
in  the  love  of  God,"  &c.    It  is  supposed  that  nothing 


•John  14:17, 


*14 


154 


DEBATE  ON 


further  need  be  added,  to  demonstrate  what  would  seem 
to  be  a  wilful  and  wicked  perversion  of  the  revealed  truth 
of  God,  with  a  view  to  support  a  false  system  of  religion. 

As  it  cannot  be  expected,  that  in  a  work  hke  this, 
there  should  be  even  an  attempt  to  detect  and  expose  all 
the  rottenness  of  the  new  version,  I  shall  notice,  and  that 
briefly,  but  one  other  part  of  that  extensive  system  of 
deception  practised  by  its  author,  which  consists  in  a 
misrepresentation  of  the  sentiments  and  translation  of 
Dr.  Macknight. 

If  we  form  a  judgment  of  the  sentiments  of  this  WTiter, 
from  his  translation  of  various  passages  of  the  Epistles, 
as  given  or  stated,  in  the  new  version,  and  detached  as 
they  are  from  his  commentary  and  notes  upon  them,  we 
shall  certainly  be  led  to  the  conclusion,  that  he  was 
tainted,  and  that  in  no  slight  degree,  with  the  Unitarian 
heresy,  which  pervaded  the  established  church  of  Scot- 
land in  his  day. 

Thus  if  we  judge  of  his  views  of  the  doctrine  of  divine 
influence  from  what  (according  to  the  new  version*) 
purports  to  be  his  translation  of  two  important  passages 
m  the  writings  of  the  apostle  of  the  Gentiles,  (Rom.  8:15, 
and  Gal.  4:6,)  we  shall  be  led  into  a  mistake  of  no  small 
importance.  In  both  these  passages,  where  the  apostle 
speaks  of  the  Spirit  of  adoption,  which  all  saints  receive. 
Dr.  Macknight  so  translates  the  w^ord  pneuma,  as  to  leave 
no  doubt  that  he  understood  it  to  refer  to  the  Spirit  of 
God.  But  in  both  instances,  Mr.  C,  without  giving  to 
his  readers  any  intimation  of  the  alteration,  has  changed 
the  renderings  of  his  translator  from  "  the  Spirit  of  adop- 
tion" and  "  the  Spirit  of  his  Son"  to  "  the  spirit  of  adop 
tion"  and  "  the  spirit  of  his  Son,"  evidently  with  a  view 
to  avoid  the  conclusion  that  the  apostle  in  these  passages  - 
had  a  reference  to  the  Holy  Spirit.  The  alteration  is 
apparently  small,  and,  to  many,  may  seem  of  no  great 
importance.  But  herein  lies  the  art  of  the  Bishop.  To 
the  intelligent  and  attentive  reader  of  the  New  Testa* 


*  See  3d  edition,  (duodecimo),  of  the  new  Tersioo. 


CAMPBELLISM. 


155 


ment,  it  is  well  known,  that  whenever  tlie  word  Spirit  is 
used  to  designate  the  Spirit  of  God,  the  first  letter  is,  as 
it  ought  ever  to  be,  a  capital;  and  on  the  other  hand,  when 
it  is  used  in  any  other  sense,  it  is  otherwise — a  capital 
letter  is  not  employed.  Nor  is  the  author  of  the  new  ver- 
sion inattentive  to  this  rule.  He  invariably,  it  is  believed, 
adheres  to  it,  according  to  his  own  views  of  the  passages 
where,  in  the  original,  the  word  pneuma  occurs.  And 
tJiat  there  was  a  sufficient  inducement  to  make  the  aher- 
ation,  will  be  evident,  when  it  is  considered  that  the  pas- 
sages last  cited,  in  their  evident  and  true  meaning,  have 
an  important  bearing  upon,  or  rather,  are  subversive  of, 
an  important  part  of  the  system  of  Mr.  C* 

It  is  true,  that  Dr.  Macknight,  (all  whose  views  and 
renderings  of  the  sacred  text  I  should  be  very  unwilling 
to  defend,)  in  some  instances,  does  seem  by  his  transla- 
tion to  favor  the  xiews  of  the  Bishop.  Thus  Eph.  6:18, 
which  the  translators  of  our  version  have  rendered  "Pray- 
ing always  with  all  prayer  and  supplication  in  the  Spir- 
it," &c.,  the  Doctor  translates  as  follows,  "  With  all  sup- 
plication and  deprecation,  pray  at  all  seasons  in  spirit,^ 
6z;c.  He  nevertheless  explains  his  views  of  this  passage 
in  a  note,  in  the  following  language:  "  This  they  were  to 
do  in  the  Spirit,  that  is,  either  with  the  heart  and  sincere- 
ly and  fervently,  or  according  as  the.  Spirit  of  God  should 
excite  and  move  them." 

Other  instances  of  unfair  representation  of  the  render- 
ings of  Dr.  Macknight,  by  the  Bishop,  consist  in  his  giv- 
ing in  his  version,  no  intimation  to  his  readers  of  w^ords 
which  the  Doctor  thought  it  necessary  to  supply,  not- 
withstanding the  words  thus  supplied,  are  in  his  transla- 
tion printed  in  capitals.  A  glaring  instance  of  this  is 
found  in  Eph.  5:26,  the  consequence  of  which,  is,  that  the 
new  version  is  made  to  speak  a  language  very  different 
from  the  original.  Our  version,  which  is  in  strict  ae- 
cordance  with  the  original,  reads  thus:  "  That  he  might 

*  Other  instances  of  similar  misrepresentation  migfht  be  giren,  hut  It 
is  deemed  unneceasary. 


156 


DEBATE  ON* 


sanctify  and  cleanse  it  (i.  e.  the  church)  with  the  washing 
of  water  by  the  word."  In  the  new  version  it  reads  as 
follows:  "  That  he  might  sanctify  her,  having  cleansed 
her  with  the  bath  of  water,  and  with  the  word."  The  words 
her  and  and,  are,  in  Dr.  Mac  knight's  translation  printed 
in  capital  letters,  to  apprize  the  reader  that  there  are  Jio 
corresponding  words  in  the  original,  but  that  they  have 
been  supplied,  as  necessary,  according  to  his  view  of  the 
passage,  to  make  clear  its  meaning.  It  suited  the  views 
of  Mr.  C,  however,  to  withhold  this  from  his  readers,  and 
to  represent  the  whole  as  a  just  translation  of  the  origin- 
al. The  inducement  which  he  had  for  this  and  the  bear- 
ing which  this  passage,  as  thus  wrested  from  its  true 
meaning,  is  made  to  have  upon  his  uatery  system,  will 
be  shown  in  a  subsequent  part  of  this  work. 

A  few  more  remarks  will  conclude  the  strictures  which 
it  was  designed  to  make  at  present  upon  the  new  version, 
in  which,  Mr.  C.  very  modestly  to  be  sure,  but  with  what 
degree  of  propriety,  the  candid  reader  will  judge,  asserts, 
**  the  ideas  communicated  by  the  apostles  and  evangelists 
of  Jesus  Christ,  are  incomparably  better  expressed,  than 
in  any  volume  ever  presented  in  our  mother  tongue." 

Whilst  he  professed  to  be  a  decided  advocate  for  the 
general  distribution  of  the  scriptures,  without  note  or 
comment;  and  whilst  he  publicly  asserts,  as  he  did  in  one  of 
his  harangues  in  Nashville,  (and  which  he  could  not  but 
have  known  at  the  time  to  be  most  incorrect,)  that  it  was 
not  until  the  year  1800,  that  Protestants  in  England,  were 
generally  permitted  to  read  the  Bible  without  the  gloss 
or  intei-pretations  of  the  clergy;  yet,  as  was  observed 
upon  the  occasion  of  the  debate,  he  had  given  a  volume 
which  did  not  profess  to  be  a  commentary,  but  a  version 
of  the  New  Testament,  and  that  too  "  incomparably  bet- 
ter" than  any  other  "  in  our  mother  tongue,"  and  was 
not  willing  that  the  text  should  speak  for  itself,  or  that 
his  readers  should  judge  for  themseves  without  the  help 
of  more  than  one  hundred  appendices,  besides  numerous 
prefaces,  prefatory  hints,  introductions,  hints  to  readers. 


CAMPBELLISM. 


157 


I  am  aware  that  it  is  asserted  by  Mr.  C.  that  none  of 
these  are  intended  to  give  his  gloss  or  interpretation  of 
the  sacred  text.  But  how  is  the  fact?  By  reference  to 
his  appendix  No.  46,  will  be  found  a  note  upon  the 
inquiry  made  by  the  jailer  of  Paul  and  Silas,  as  related 
in  Acts  16,  which  purports  to  be  taken  from  a  translator 
of  the  name  of  Wakefield,  which  must  evidently  appear 
to  be  a  gloss  upon  the  text  very  much  in  accordance 
with  the  views  of  the  author  of  the  new  version:  "  The 
jailer  (it  is  said)  meant  no  more  than  what  shall  I  do  to 
be  safe  from  punishment,  for  what  had  befallen  the 
prisoners  and  the  prison.  This  is  beyond  doubt  the 
sense  of  the  passage,  though  Paul  in  his  reply,  uses  the 
words  in  a  more  extensive  signification,  a  practice  com- 
mon in  these  waitings.^'  If  this  be  not  an  interpretation, 
and  that  too  in  a  high  tone  of  assumed  authority,  it  W' ould 
be  difficult  to  tell  what  amounts  to  an  interpretation;  and 
moreover,  if  it  be  not  a  genuine  Unitarian  gloss,  I  shall 
be  willing  when  made  sensible  of  it,  to  acknowledge 
the  mistake.  This  interpretation  of  the  passage  seems 
so  well  to  accord  with  the  views  of  Mr.  C.,  that  he  has 
given  the  translation  of  the  inquiry  of  the  jailer  by 
vVakefield,  the  preference,  not  only  to  our  standard  ver- 
sion, but  to  the  translation  of  Dr.  Doddridge,  which  in 
this  instance,  is  more  literal  than  the  former,  w^hilst  that 
of  the  translator  Wakefield,  agrees  neither  with  the  letter 
nor  spirit  of  the  original.  The  three  translations  of  the 
inquiry  of  the  jailer,  (Acts  16:30,)  are  as  follows:  old 
version,  "  what  shall  I  do  to  be  saved?"  Doddridge, 
"  what  shall  I  do  that  I  may  be  saved?"  Wakefield,  as 
adopted  by  Mr.  C,  "  what  shall  I  do  that  I  may  be  safe?** 
Whilst  the  first  evidently  expresses  the  meaning  of  the 
text,  the  second  is  exactly  a  literal  rendering  of  the  ori- 
ginal, but  the  third  is  a  departure  from  both. 

Again,  by  reference  to  Phil.  1:5,  it  will  be  perceived 
that  the  author  of  the  new  version,  has  substituted  from 
Thompson,  the  word  contribution,  for  the  word  fellow* 
ship,  which  is  not  only  found  in  our  standard  version, 
but  in  the  translation  of  Dr.  Macknight;  and  in  his  ap- 


158 


DEBATE  ON 


pendix  No.  82,  he  adds  the  following  note,  "  the  Philip- 
pians  were  much  commended  by  the  apostle  for  their 
liberality  to  him.  It  is  the  first  thing  mentioned  in  the 
epistle.  This  the  apostle  calls,  verse  6,  the  good  work 
begun  among  them,  or  in  them,  which  he  had  no  doubt 
would  be  continued  and  completed  until  the  day  of  re- 
wards." "  Some  secretaries"  [sectaries]  it  is  added,  "have 
converted  this  good  work  into  God's  work  upon  them, 
and  have  made  the  apostle  invahdate  his  own  exhorta- 
tion to  them,  to  w^ork  out  their  salvation  with  fear  and 
trembling." 

Will  it  be  alleged  by  the  Bishop,  that  he  has  not  in  this 
instance,  assumed  the  office  not  only  of  an  interpreter 
but  of  a  censor,  instead  of  confining  himself  to  the  duty 
of  an  humble  compiler?  What  would  we  have  said,  if  the 
**  king's  translators,"  had  appended  a  note  to  any  passage 
of  the  sacred  text,  explanatory  according  to  their  veiws 
of  its  meaning,  and  bearing  as  hard  upon  Arians  or 
Unitarians,  as  does  the  foregoing  upon  the  various  sects 
of  evangelical  Christians?  Would  not  the  fact  have  occu- 
pied a  conspicuous  place  in  his  writings,  and  would  it 
not  have  been  trumpeted  a  thousand  times  over  in  his 
public  harangues?  And  yet  the  Bishop  (modest  and  un^ 
assuming  man!)  has  made  no  attempt  (if  we  are  to  be- 
lieve his  word  in  opposition  to  what  he  himself  has 
written,)  to  put  a  gloss  upon  any  passage  of  the  New 
Testament! 

But  perhaps  he  may,  in  this  instance,  plead  in  justifica- 
tion, his  zeal  against  the  sectaries  who  hold  and  maintain 
that  by  the  "  good  work"  which  the  apostle  declares 
**  be"  (i.  e.  God)  had  "  begun  in'''  the  believing  Philippir 
ans,  is  to  be  understood  something  very  different  from 
their  liberality  in  contributing  to  his  necessities,  even 
"  God's  work  upon  them,"  or  in  the  language  of  the 
apostle,  "  in  them^''  whereby  they  were  quickened  who 
were  dead  in  trespasses  and  sins;  and  whereby  a  work 
of  sanctification  was  begun,  which  the  apostle  was  con- 
fident, would  be  performed  until  the  day  of  Jesus  Christ. 
And  these  sectaries  moreover  maintain,  that  the  same 


CAMPBELLISM. 


grace  of  God  is  as  necessary  now  to  begin  a  good  work 
m  a  sinner,  and  to  perform  it  until  the  day  spoken  of  by 
the  apostle,  as  it  was  in  the  time  and  in  the  case  of  the 
Fhilippians.  If  this  view  of  the  passage  under  considera- 
tion, and  of  the  good  work  therein  mentioned  as  begun 
in  all  that  are  saints,  makes  "  the  apostle  invalidate  his 
own  exhortation"  to  the  Philippians,  "  to  work  out  their 
own  salvation  with  fear  and  trembhng,"  as  Mr.  C.  as- 
serts, it  would  have  been  gratifying  to  know,  what  is  his 
gloss  upon  that  which  immediately  follows  and  is  con- 
nected with  this  exhortation;  and  which  indeed  seems  to 
have  been  assigned  as  a  reason  or  motive  to  excite  them 
to  diligence  in  the  great  work  which  they  had  to  do. 
"  For  (adds  the  apostle,  Phil.  2:13)  it  is  God\vhich  work- 
eih  in  you  both  to  will  and  to  do  of  his  good  pleasure." 
Why  did  the  Bishop  garble  the  exhortation  of  the  apos- 
tle, leaving  out  of  view  that,  which  furnishes  to  the  saints 
the  only  sufficient  encouragement  to  engage  and  continue 
in  the  great  work  which  they  are  required  to  accomplish? 
Must  it  not  have  been  because  it  appeared  to  him  that 
die  apostle  thereby  invalidated  his  own  exhortation?  It 
would  indeed  seem  there  is  a  secret  here  with  which  he 
is  unacquainted, — even  "  the  secret  of  the  Lord  which  is 
with  those  who  fear  him;'*  and  that  if  there  be  such  **  a 
good  work,"  as  the  apostle  speaks  of,  begun  in  all  such 
as  are  "  called  to  be  saints,"  the  learned  Bishop  of  Betha- 
ny is  a  stranger  to  it. 

It  would  be  no  difficult  task,  to  refer  to  other  passages 
or  remarks,  in  the  numerous  appendices  to  the  new  ver- 
sion, the  evident  design  and  tendency  of  which,  are  to 
advocate  his  own  views,  or  disparage  those  held  by  the 
various  sects  of  evangelical  Christians,  but  it  is  thought 
to  be  unnecessary. 

I  now  proceed  to  give  a  brief  statement  of  the  last 
topic  that  was  brought  under  discussion,  during  the  de- 
bate on  Saturday,  25th  December.  As  Mr.  C.  had  a  short 
time  previous  to  his  visit  to  Nashville,  issued  his  M.  Har- 
binger, Extra,  No.  1,  wherein  it  is  not  only  contended 
that  "  regeneration  and  immersion  are  two  names  for  the 


160^ 


DEBATE  OJf 


same  thing,"  but  that  "  being  born  again,  and  being  im- 
mersed, are  (also)  the  same  thing."*  And  as  in  one  of  hii» 
pubhc  harangues,  or  discourses  upon  a  part  of  the  3d  chap- 
ter of  John,  dehvered  in  NashviUe,  he  had  endeavored  lo 
inculcate  the  same  doctrine,  it  was  thought  advisable, 
after  having,  to  some  extent,  exposed  the  rottenness  of* 
the  new  version,  to  proceed  to  the  examination  of  his 
views  of  the  new  birth,  or  what  is  to  be  understood  by 
being  "  born  again."  With  this  view,  I  proposed  for  dis- 
cussion the  following  topic,  "  To  be  born  again — wluit 
is  it?" 

When  this  topic  w^as  introduced,  Mr.  C.  expressed 
much  satisfaction  that  a  subject  was  at  length  brought 
into  notice,  the  discussion  of  which  he  alleged  might 
prove  edifying  to  the  audience;  and  he  moreover  inti- 
mated what  he  would  do,  provided  I  would  only  dwell 
upon  it  a  sufficient  length  of  time.  The  discussion  of 
this  topic,  was  accordingly  entered  upon,  and  continued 
till  nearly,  if  not  quite,  10  o'clock  at  night;  but  of  th'm 
part  of  the  debate  on  Saturday,  he  takes  no  notice  in  his 
narrative.  I  am  here  compelled  to  notice  one  of  the 
very  incorrect  statements  with  which  his  account  of  tlie 
debate  abounds.  He  states  that  at  the  hour  alreadv 
mentioned,  "  the  wortJiy  gentleman,  (meaning  mysell,) 
let  us  know  that  he  had  much  more  to  say,,  and  was 
sorry  that  my  appointments,  (i.  e.  the  appointments  of 
the  Bishop,)  forwarded  through  Kentucky,  prevented  a 
continuance  of  the  conference  the  next  week."  This 
statement  does  not  accord  with  truth.  The  fact  is,  I 
knew  nothing  concerning  his  appointments  through  Ken- 
tucky, and  consequently  neither  felt  nor  expressed  any 
sorrow  on  account  of  them  or  their  supposed  prevention 
of  "  a  continuance  of  the  conference  the  next  week." 
After  what  had  fallen  from  Mr.  C.  in  the  morning,  con- 
cerning his  engagements  J  and  the  consequent  impossibility 
that  he  could  remain  longer  than  the  next  Monday  morn- 
ing, I  had  no  expectation  whatever  that  the  discussion 

M    .  Harbinger,  Extra,  No.  1,  p.  28. 


CAMPBELLISM. 


161 


would  be  continued  the  next  week.  Nor  did  I,  at  any 
time  during  the  day  or  evening,  make  any  observation 
in  relation  to  the  Umited  time  assigned  for  the  discussion, 
except  by  way  of  reply  to  his  loud  and  frequent  com- 
plaints, that  I  so  frequently  changed  the  subject  of  dis- 
cussion, or  so  rapidly  passed  from  one  thing  to  another, 
which  from  a  consideration  of  the  course  I  had  deter- 
mined to  pursue,  and  the  want  of  more  ample  time  for 
the  discussion  of  the  various  topics  introduced,  I  was 
compelled  to  do.  Being  therefore,  (I  certainly  was  at 
the  time,)  under  a  full  conviction  tliat  the  debaie  was 
just  about  to  be  finally  concluded,  I  was  not  a  little  sur- 
prised, but  not  displeased,  with  the  proposition  which,  it 
is  affirmed,  was  gratuitously  made  by  Mr.  C,  to  continue 
the  conference  on  the  next  Monday,  provided  I  would 
select  some  one  subject  for  discussion.  The  proposition 
was  to  me  a  matter  of  surprise,  because  I  had  supposed 
him  to  be  serious  and  candid  in  his  declaration,  made  in 
the  morning,  that  he  could  not  remain,  and  I  am  much 
mistaken  if  the  impression  thereby  made  upon  the  minds 
of  the  audience,  or  at  least  a  great  majority  of  them, 
was  not,  that  he  found  it  would  not  so  well  answer  his 
purpose,  as  he  had  expected,  then  to  put  an  end  to  the 
debate.  Nor  is  it  difficult  to  perceive  the  strong  induce- 
ment which  the  Bishop  had,  in  writing  his  narrative,  to 
represent  the  continuance  of  the  debate  on  Monday,  as 
the  result  of  a  compliance  with  my  wishes,  and  not  of  a 
gratuitous  proposition  coming  from  himself.  In  acced- 
ing to  his  proposition,  I  certainly  did  not  understand,  as 
will  evidently  appear  from  the  sequel,  that  his  proposal 
to  remain,  was  made  upon  the  condition  that  I  would 
furnish  for  discussion,  a  logical  proposition.  We  had  not 
been  engaged  in  the  discussion  of  logical  propositions, 
but  as  he  states,  in  the  contents  of  the  3d  number  of  his 
Mill.  Harbinger,  vol.  2,  (which  contains  his  narrative  of 
the  debate,)  of  "sundry  topics."  He  had  moreover  made 
no  complaints,  (of  which  I  have  the  least  recollection.) 
that  the  topics  introduced  by  myself,  did  not  assume  the 
form  of  logical  propositions,  but  only  that  the  subject  of 


162 


BERATE  OX 


discussion  was  too  frequently  changed  to  accord  with 
his  convenience,  or  his  views  of  propriety.  And  indeed 
the  unreasonableness  of  such  complaints,  had  they  bceii 
made,  would  at  once  have  been  apparent.  It  is  evidciit 
I  could  not  have  introduced  a  logical  proposition,  a! 
least  of  the  affirmative  kind,  unless  by  assuming  some 
principle,  or  doctrine,  or  fact,  which  1  believed  to  be 
true,  and  of  course,  instead  of  endeavoring  to  show  ihe 
unsoundness  of  his  religious  views  and  sentiments,  which 
wai'  the  avowed  and  only  object  of  the  meeting,  I  should 
have  been  compelled  to  defend  my  own. 

A  more  particular  account  of  the  discussion  of  the 
topic  last  introduced,  on  Saturday,  is  not  here  attempted 
to  be  given,  because  it  was  substantially,  though  not  in 
form,  renewed  on  ^Monday,  when  all  the  leading  points 
and  arguments,  prc\'iously  adduced ,  so  far  as  they  are- 
now  recollected,  were  recapitulated. 

Supposing  that  Mr.  C,  fi/t  himself  at  all  times  prejjar« 
ed,  without  any  previous  notice  of  the  point  of  attack,  to 
defend  his  system  of  "  the  ancient  gosjpely^  I  was  again, 
somewhat  surprised,  when  two  of  his  friends,  at  his  iiK 
stance,  called  upon  me  the  next  (the  Lord's  day)  Enorn- 
ing,  with  a  request  that  I  w^ould  furnish  a  statement  in 
writing,  of  the  subject  proposed  for  the  next  day's  discus- 
sion. The  application  was  to  me  wholly  unexpected,  nor 
was  I  determinately  fixed  upon  a  subject.  After  a  little 
reflection,  however,  I  determined  to  offer  the  same  topic,, 
(with  a  slight  addition.)  that  had  been  last  introduced 
and  partially  discussed  on  Saturday.  My  mind  was 
brought  to  this  conclusion,  partly  by  the  consideration  of 
the  importance  of  the  subject,  and  partly  from  a  desire 
to  avoid  difficulty,  or  misunderstanding,  concerning  the 
topic  proposed.  Recollecting  the  gratification  expressed 
by  Mr.  C,  when  this  topic  was  introduced  on  Saturday,. 
I  certainly  had  not  the  least  expectation  that  he  would" 
hesitate,  much  less  object  to  resume  the  discussion  of  it 
on  Monday.  Accordingly  I  heard  nothing  more  fron> 
him,  until  we  again  met  at  the  Baptist  church,  on  Mon- 
day morning,  at  the  hour  appointed. 


163 


PART  ra. 

MR.  C.'s  UNREASONABLE  PREVARICATION— HIS  THEORY 
OF  REGENERATION  BY  IMMERSION— HIS  DISINTER- 
ESTEDNESS. 

I  HAVE  here  again  to  remark,  that  the  account  given 
by  Mr.  C,  of  the  proceedings  of  the  forenoon  of  Monday, 
is  nothing  better  than  a  garbled  and  mutilated  misrepre- 
sentation of  facts.  It  is  indeed,  true,  that  I  chose  Mr. 
Hays  as  one  of  the  moderators  who  presided  on  that 
occasion,  but  from  the  account  given  by  the  Bishop,  his 
readers,  it  is  thought,  w^ould  be  ready  to  conclude  that 
the  substitution  of  moderators,  in  the  place  of  the  chair- 
man vi^ho  had  presided  on  Saturday,  w^as  a  measure 
adopted  at  my  suggestion.  Such  was  not  the  fact.  The 
■chairman  declined  to  act  on  Monday,  and  it  was  Mr.  C. 
that  proposed  the  choice  of  moderators.  To  this  I  made 
no  objection;  ail  this  w^hile  I  neither  heard  of,  nor  antici- 
pated any  objection  from  my  opponent,  to  the  topic  pro- 
posed for  that  day's  discussion,  which  was,  as  he  has 
truly  stated  in  his  narrative,  "  To  he  horn  again — what  is 
it  ?  And  what  the  effects  thereof?"  And  that  which  ren- 
ders this  circumstance  the  more  worthy  of  notice,  is,  that 
while  the  moderators  which  we  had  respectively  chosen, 
were  employed  in  selecting  a  third  person,  a  private  and 
personal  conversafion  of  several  minutes  continuance, 
took  place  between  Mr,  C.  and  myself,  when  a  conveni- 
ent and  fit  opportunity  presented  itself  for  him  to  make 
his  objections,  if  any  he  had,  to  the  statement  of  the  sub- 
ject proposed  for  debate,  if  his  real  object  had  been  the 
correction  of  any  supposed  misapprehension  or  mistake, 
or  the  removal  of  any  difficulty  in  the  way  of  entering 
upon  the  discussion,  the  expectation  of  which  had  excited 
great  interest,  and  collected  a  crowded  audience.  And 
this  will  be  more  evident,  when  it  is  considered  that  any 
question  or  difference  of  opinion,  concerning  the  state- 


164 


DEBATE  ON 


ment  of  the  subject  of  debate,  could  only  be  settled  or 
removed  by  an  amicable  adjustment  or  understanding 
between  ourselves.  It  was  not  a  question  of  order,  such 
as  the  moderators  were  at  all  competent  to  decide.  Mr. 
C,  nevertheless,  left  me  for  24  hours  under  the  impres- 
sion, (and  that  too,  notwithstanding  the  private  conversa- 
tion above  alluded  to,)  that  the  subject  proposed  was  al- 
together agreeable  to  him;  nor  was  it  until  alter  the  mode- 
rators selected  by  us,  had  appointed  the  Rev.  Mr.  Paine, 
of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  church,  as  the  third  man,  and 
they  had  taken  their  seats,  that  I  had  the  least  intimation 
of  any  difficulty  in  the  way  of  entering  upon  the  debate. 
Then  he  made  his  appeal  or  complaint  to  the  moderators, 
informing  them,  as  he  states,  that  he  had  not  received  a 
(logical)  proposition  from  me,  but  only  the  statement  of  a 
topic  for  discussion,  or  in  his  own  language,  as  contained  in 
his  narrative,  "  only  the  subject  of  a  proposition,  without 
a  predicate."  "  Mr.  Jennings,  (he  adds,)  at  first  demurred 
against  giving  me  any  thing  save  the  topic  already  men- 
tioned, but  being  reminded  of  the  pledge  he  had  given 
on  Saiui'day  evening,  he  attempted  to  draft  one.  But  so 
it  came  to  pass,  that  w^e  could  not  get  any  definite  propo- 
sition from  Mr.  J.,  till  one  o'clock."  With  a  small  mix- 
ture of  truth,  this  statement  is  declared  to  be  a  gross 
misrepresentation,  and  calculated,  as  it  was  no  doubt 
designed,  to  make  a  false  impression  uyjon  the  public 
mind.  ]\Ir.  C.  needs  to  be  "  reminded,"  and  the  pub- 
lic to  be  informed  of  the  truth.  His  statement  would 
lead  his  readers  to  conclude,  that  I  not  only  "  demurred 
against  giving"  him  "  any  thing  save  the  topic  already 
mentioned,"  which  is  true,  but  that  upon  "being  reminded 
of  the  pledge"  previously  given,  which  it  would  say,  that 
I  at  least  tafcitly  acknowledged  had  not  been  redeemed,  I 
forthwith  attempted  to  draft  a  proposition,  and  yet  that 
nothing  definite  could  be  obtained  from  me  before  one 
o'clock.  It  is  true  that  I  demurred,  as  he  has  stated,  but 
for  the  reason,  as  I  contended,  that  I  had  fully  complied 
with  mv  stipulation  on  Saturday  evening.  It  was  further 
alleged,'  that  whatever  had  been  the  understanding  or 


€A3tPBELtTSM* 


165 


expectation  of  Mr,  C,  it  certainly  was  not  understood  by 
myself,  that  a  logical  proposition  should  be  furnished  as 
the  subject  of  tliat  day's  discussion.  It  was,  moreover, 
shown  to  be  unreasonable  and  unfair,  to  m.ake  such  a 
demand,  inasmuch  as  such  a  proposition,  at  least,  of 
an  affirmative  character,  could  not  be  given  with- 
out affirming  something  which  I  myself  beheved,  and 
which  must  have  the  effect  of  totally  changing  the 
nature  and  subject  of  the  debate.  It  was  further  alleged 
that  the  object  of  the  meeting,  and  that  too  in  pursuance 
of  an  invitation  or  challenge  puWicly  given  by  himself, 
was  to  hear  and  discuss  objections  to  his  religious  sys- 
tem, and  not  mine.  That  1  had  accordingly  attended 
with  a  view  to  discuss,  noi  Presbyterianism  or  Calvm- 
ism,  but  Campbellism"  Mr.  C  was  also  reminded  that 
his  complaint  on  Saturday,  of  my  course  of  proceeding, 
was  not  because  I  did  not  introduce  logical  propositions 
for  discussion,  but  because  the  topic  or  subject  of  debate 
was  so  frequently  changed,  and  that  I  had  then  selected 
one  topic,  which  alone  I  expected  to  be  the  subject  of 
that  day's  conference,  which  was  substantially  the  same 
that  had  already  been  partially  discussed,  and  with 
which  he  had  expressed  himself  to  be  well  satisfied.  But 
after  an  altercation  or  desultory  debate  of,  perhaps,  two 
hours'  continuance,  Mr.  C.  still  persisted  in  refusing  to 
enter  upon,  or  resume  the  discussion  of  a  topic  with  which 
he  had  been  so  well  pleased  the  preceding  Saturday:  and 
that  too,  as  will  be  clearly  perceived  by  the  seqiK^-l, 
notwithstanding  the  debate  which  at  last  did  take  place 
in  the  afternoon,  Avas,  in  fact  and  in  substance,  nothrr/g 
more  nor  less,  than  a  discussion  of  "  the  topic  already 
mentioned."  At  lensfth  it  became  apparent  that  Mr.  C. 
in  persisting  in  his  refusal  to  discuss  the  topic  proposed, 
had  one  of  two  object?  in  view.  Either  he  wished  to 
decline  any  further  discussion,  or  he  intended,  if  possible, 
to  exchange  positions,  by  putting  me  on  the  defence  of  my 
own  religious  sentiments,  with  a  view^  to  prevent  any 
further  attack  upon  his.  My  own  impression  was,  that' 
the  latter  was  his  real  object;  although  it  is  belie\  ed 

*  15 


166 


DEBATE  ON 


that  a  majority  of  the  audience  were  of  opinion,  that  he 
had  a  strong  disinclination  to  renew  the  contest.  I  was 
confirmed  in  my  own  opinion  of  his  real  object,  from  the 
fact,  that  on  Saturday,  he  had  made  attempts  to  turn  me 
aside  from  my  a vow^ecT purpose  in  meeting  this  champion 
of  error  and  false  doctrine,  in  debate,  by  endeavoring  to 
provoke  me  incidentally  to  discuss  the  subject  of  infant 
baptism,  and  other  doctrines  held  by  the  sect  to  which  I 
belong. 

As  I  had  met  Mr.  C,  in  pursuance  of  his  own  invita- 
tion, with  a  view  to  attack  his  system,  and  not  to  defend 
mine,  it  w^as  my  determination  not  to  permit  him  to 
change  sides.  Still,  with  a  view  that  it  would  more 
clearly  appear  to  the  audience  that  Mr.  C,  (to  use  a 
homely,  but  expressive  phrase,)  really  wished  to  "  back 
Old"  if  he  still  persisted  to  decline  entering  upon  further 
discussion,  I  at  length  proposed,  to  endeavor,  if  possible, 
to  remove  all  objections,  by  furnishing  him  with  a  pro- 
position. A  proposition,  of  a  negative  form,  w^  as  accord- 
ingly prepared,  denying  the  truth  of  what  is  asserted 
in  the  following  paragraph  of  his  Extra,  No.  1,  (page  12,) 
"  Whatever  this  act  of  faith  may  be,  it  necessarily  be- 
comes the  line  of  discrimination  between  the  two  states 
before  described.  On  this  side,  and  on  that,  mankind 
are  in  quite  different  states.  On  the  one  side  they  are 
pardoned,  justified,  reconciled,  adopted  and  saved:  on 
the  other,  they  are. in  a  state  of  condemnation.  This  act 
(of  faith)  is  sometime?  called  immersion,  regeneration, 
conversion;  and  that  this  may  appear  obvious  to  all,  we 
shall  be  at  some  pains  to  confirm  and  illustrate  it."  This 
paragraph,  w^hich  brings  out  "Me  avcient  gosper^  in  bold 
relief,  evidently  contains  the  affinxjative  proposition,  that 
such,  and  such  only,  as  submit  to  be  imn  ersed,  with  a 
belief  that  they  shall  thereby  obtain  "  the  remission  of 
sins,"  are  pardoned,  justified,  sanctified,  &c.,  while  all 
the  rest  of  mankind,  whatever  may  be  the  state  of  their 
heart,  or  whatever  may  be  their  character,  not  only  in 
the  opinion  of  their  fellow  men,  but  in  the  sight  of  God, 
"  are  in  a  state  of  condemnation."    The  proposition 


CAMPBELLISM. 


167 


paced,  and  proposed  for  discussion,  instead  of"  the  topic 
already  mentioned,"  was  the  negative  of  the  foregoing, 
which,  it  seemed  evident,  Mr.  C.  was  bound  to  defend 
or  acknowledge  his  error.  Still  the  proposition  was  not 
accepted.  Let  it,  however,  be  particularly  noticed,  that 
the  objection  first  raised,  was  not  that  the  proposition  was 
too  multifarious,  but  because  it  was  a  negative  proposi- 
tion. In  making  this  objection,  he  indeed  observed,  that 
he  did  not  urge  it  so  much  on  his  own  account,  as  mine, 
for  he  inquired,  could  I  undeitake  to  support  a  negative 
proposition?  To  which  it  was  rephed,  that  he  need  not 
indulge  in  any  uneasiness  or  concern,  on  my  account- 

I  would  here  call  the  attention  of  the  reader  to  the 
evident  want  of  consistency  in  part  of  Mr.  C.'s  narrative. 
He  informs  his  readers  he  was  "  determined  not  to  tarry 
on  Monday,  unless  a  proposition  of  some  sort,  affirmative 
or  negative  was  presented;"  and  yet  when  a  proposition 
was  presented,  the  first  objection  made  was  that  it  was  of  a 
negative  character.  But  this  was  not  all.  His  determi- 
nation not  to  remain  but  upon  the  condition  already 
stated,  is  by  him  assigned  as  the  reason  why  he  "  request- 
ed through  some  of  the  brethren  who  waited  on"  me 
**  next  (or  Lord's  day)  morning,  a  proposition."  And 
yet  notwithstanding  his  determination,  although  he  "  had 
not  got  a  proposition,"  but  a  topic,  he  remained  the  next 
day  until  nearly  11  o'clock,  inihont  givivg  jne  a  hint  of 
his  dissatisfaction  with  the  topic  which  had  been  furnish- 
ed, or  of  his  determination  not  to  remain  unless  a  proposi* 
tion  was  presented. 

It  is  true  that  Mr.  C.  did  afterwards  object  to  tlie 
proposition  offered  as  being  multifarious  and  proposed  to 
engross  it,  which  I  agreed  he  might  attempt  to  do,  re- 
serving to  myself  the  right  to  reject  it,  if  I  thought  proper. 
He  accordingly  engrossed  it  in  a  manner  to  suit  or  please 
himself;  but  after  some  examination  it  was  rejected,  and 
particularly  because,  like  most  of  his  productions,  it  con., 
tained  some  small  mixture  of  truth  with  much  error,  and 
tlierefore  it  could  not  be  accepted  without  laying  myself 
under  the  necessity  of  denying  the  part  that  was  true. 


168 


DEBATE  OTS 


as  well  as  that  which  was  erroneous.  Determined  on 
my  part  to  leave  him  without  the  shadow  of  a  pretext  for 
dechning  any  further  debate,  I  next  proposed  another 
proposition,  which  Mr.  C.  has,  as  is  usual  with  him,  first 
stated  incorrectly,  and  then  pronounced  it  to  be  awkward. 
The  proposition  was  not  as  he  states  it  to  have  been: 
To  be  horn  again  and  to  be  immersed  is  not  the  same 
thing:^^  but  it  was  in  the  following  words:  "  To  say  that 
to  be  born  again  and  to  be  immersed  is  the  same  thing, 
is  false,  and  cannot  be  supported  by  the  word  of  God." 
The  Bishop,  in  his  narrative,  states  that  he  "  was  con- 
strained to  accept  this  awkward  proposition,  or  to  have 
no  discussion."  If  the  reader  will  refer  to  his  Extra,  Na 
1,  page  28,  he  will  at  once  perceive  that  he  had  so  une- 
quivocally advocated  the  doctrine  or  position  which  the 
proposition  last  presented  affirms  to  he  false,  that  he  could 
not  unqualifiedly  object  to  it  without  making  it  glaringly 
manifest  either  that  he  was  determined  to  have  no  further 
discussion,  or  that  he  was  unwilling  to  defend  what  he 
had  deliberately  published.  Nevertheless  he  evinced  a 
desire  to  avoid  the  discussion  even  of  this  proposition, 
which,  in  his  view,  or  according  to  his  feelings  at  the 
time,  it  is  believed,  was  indeed  "  awhcard'''  enough.  In- 
stead of  frankly  and  without  hesitation  accepting  of  the 
proposition,  as  a  man  who  had  confidence  in  the  truth  of 
what  he  had  published  to  the  Avorld  would  do,  he  re- 
quired, as  a  condition  precedent  to  his  acceptance  of  it, 
that  I  should  make  a  concession.  In  the  abstract,  and 
according  to  every  sound  principle,  he  had  no  more  right 
or  just  reason  to  demand  this  than  he  had  to  demand 
one  of  my  garments,  or  than  the  robber  on  the  high 
way  has  to  demand  the  traveller's  money.  If  he 
had  in  his  Extra  advanced  nothing  except  the  truth  fairly 
deduced  from  the  word  of  God,  what  need  of  a  conces- 
sion from  me?  Could  not  the  champion  of  Bethany,  who 
could  boast  of  having  foiled  or  totally  defeated  powerful 
foes,  defend  himself  in  liis  own  intrenchments,  if  indeed 
they  were  fortified  "  by  the  word  of  truth,"  and  he  hin> 
aalf  clad  with  the  "  armor  of  righteousness  on  the  righl 


CAMPBELLISM. 


169 


hand  and  on  the  left?"  It  seems  to  be  evident  that  the 
object  of  Mr.  C.  in  demanding  the  concession,  was  not 
merely,  as  he  would  have  his  readers  believe,  to  save 
debate,  but  that  he  might  have  some  plausible  pretence 
for  declining  a  further  discussion  if  his  demand  were  not 
complied  with,  or  in  case  of  a  compliance,  that  he  might 
gain  what  he  supposed  would  be  an  important  advantage 
m  the  discussion  of  the  proposition.  And  in  confirmation 
of  this  view  of  his  real  object,  let  it  be  observed,  that  no 
sooner  was  the  concession  made  according  to  his  de- 
mand, than  there  were  evident  indications  of  exultation 
among  his  followers,  some  of  whom,  immediately  after 
the  adjournment  until  the  afternoon,  and  before  the  dis- 
cussion of  the  proposition  commenced,  were  heard  to  say 
there  could  be  no  doubt  about  the  issuse  of  the  debate, 
inasmuch  as  they  considered  the  concession  decisive  of 
the  question.  The  concession  required  by  Mr.  C.  and 
made  by  me,  was,  as  he  has  iruly  stated,  that  the  term 
regeneration,  in  Titus  3:5,  was  equivalent  lo  "  being  born 
again,"  according  to  the  sense  in  which  I  understood  the 
phrELse.  Believing  as  I  did  the  concession  required  to  be 
in  accordance  with  the  truth,  it  was  made  with  a  view 
of  removing  even  the  shadow  of  a  pretence  for  avoiding 
any  further  discussion,  and  the  Bishop  may  well  say  ha 
was  constrained  to  accept  the  ^'  awkward  proposition*" 

After  an  adjournment  till  3  o'clock,  we  again  met,  and 
the  discussion  commenced.  As  I  held  not  the  negative, 
as  Mr.  C.  in  his  narrative  has  represented,  but  the  affir- 
mative of  the  proposition,  as  I  had  therein  affirmed  one 
of  his  leading  doctrines  to  he  false,  it  is  true  that  I  "  arose 
without  ceremony,"  and  opened  the  debate  by  speaking 
twenty  minutes.  The  first  argument  in  the  series  of  proof 
advanced  to  show  the  unsoundness  of  the  position  that 
"  to  be  born  again  and  to  be  immersed  is  the  same  thing,** 
was  drawn  from  the  apparent  uncharitableness  of  the 
doctrine  thereby  implied.  For  if  it  be  true,  as  our  Sa- 
viour declares  to  Nicodemus,  that  except  a  man  be  born 
again  he  cannot  see  the  kingdom  of  God;  and  if  by  this 
expression  we  are  to  understand  that  unless  a  man  ba 


170 


DEBATE  ON 


immersed  he  cannot  obtain  the  forgiveness  of  his  sins,  ot 
the  favor  of  God,  as  Mr.  C.  in  his  Extra  (page  12)  con- 
tends, then  it  follows,  as  it  is  also  alleged  by  him,  that  all 
who  are  not  immersed  are  in  a  state  of  condemnation. 
It  matters  not,  however  upright  they  may  be  in  their  in- 
tention,— or  however  truly  disposed  in  heart  to  obey  all 
the  commands  of  God,  or  however  desirous  to  know  the 
will  of  God  that  they  may  do  it,' — it  matters  not  how 
penitent  they  be  for  their  sins,  and  contrite  and  humble 
in  their  spirit,  and  holy  in  their  Hfe  and  conversation, — 
it  matters  not  how  conscientious  they  may  be  in  refrain- 
ing from  being  immersed,  influenced  by  a  belief,  and  that 
too  after  a  careful  examination  of  the  word  of  God,  that 
he  does  not  require  it  at  their  hands, — still,  if  the  Bishop's 
doctrine  be  true,  they  must  be  and  remain  in  a  state  of 
condemnation,  until  they  receive  the  law  at  his  mouth, 
and  be  immersed,  at  the  same  time  believing  that  he 
"  that  made  the  washing  of  clay  from  the  eyes,  the  wash- 
ing away  of  blindness,"  has  made  "  the  immersion  of  the 
body  in  w^ater"  (of  him  who  historically  heWexes  the  gos- 
pel) "  efficacious  for  the  washing  away  mnfrom  iJie  am- 
science^* 

It  is  true,  as  Mr.  C.  states  in  his  narrative,  thai  he  in 
reply  made  his  appeal  to  the  audience,  "  whether  his 
charitableness  or  uncharitableness  was  any  proof  of  the 
proposition,"  and  he  loudly  complained  that  I  was  endea- 
voring "  to  incapacitate  them  for  examining  coolly  and 
dispassionately  the  question,  by  an  attempt  to  inflame 
their  passions  and  arouse  their  prejudices."  The  Bishop 
seemed,  both  in  his  own  view  and  in  fact,  to  be  so  iden* 
tified  with  his  favorite  doctrine,  as  to  render  him  incapa- 
ble of  distinguishing  between  that  convenient  method  of 
washing  away  sin,  and  himself;  and  was  led  to  consider 
any  attack  upon  the  former,  as  leveWed  person  aJIy  against 
its  author.  It  was  admitted  that  his  "  charitableness  or 
uncharitableness"  had  nothing  to  do  with  the  question. 
But  not  so  with  regard  to  the  true  nature  or  character 
of  his  doctrine  which  he  was  endeavoring  to  defend,  and 

*  See  Mr.  Campbell's  Extra,  No.  1,  page  40, 


CAMPBELLISM. 


171 


which  I  had  undertaken  to  show  to  be  false  and  unsup- 
ported by  the  word  of  God.  It  was  contended,  that  if 
any  supposed  religious  doctrine  or  sentiment,  after  a  seri- 
ous and  candid  examination  appears  to  be  uncharitable 
in  its  nature  and  tendency,  it  furnishes  a  strong  pre  sump- 
tivCf  though  not  a  conclusive  argument,  that  it  is  not 
sound;  and  that  if  we  had  any  means  of  ascertaining  its 
uncharitableness  beyond  all  doubt,  its  falsehood  would 
thereby  be  conclusively  established.  But  as  the  best  and 
most  enlightened  men  are  liable  to  err  in  judgment,  and 
perhaps  from  various  causes  may  be  more  especially  Ha- 
ble  to  mistake  in  forming  a  judgment  concerning  the  tnie 
character  and  tendency  of  any  religious  doctrine  which 
their  minds  do  not  receive,  it  would  not  be  safe,  nor  was 
it  pretended  in  the  discussion,  to  rely  upon  any  argument 
drawn  from  this  source  as  conclusive,  or  as  furnishing  of 
itself  sufficient  grounds  to  reject  the  doctrine  in  question- 
But  it  was  contended,  that  the  spirit  and  tendency  of  the 
Bishop's  (}.K)pish)  doctrine,  did  so  palpably  appear  to  be 
in  direct  collision,  not  only  with  the  spirit  of  the  benign 
gospel  of  the  "  blessed  God,"  but  with  many  of  its  gra- 
clous  declarations,  as  to  furnish  a  strong  presumption,  that 
it  could  not  be  true,  and  ought  therefore  to  put  all  upon 
their  guard  against  a  hasty  reception  of  it,  and  especially 
to  excite  such  as  felt  any  inclination  to  embrace  it,  first 
to  search  the  scriptures  to  see  whether  these  things  be  so. 

We  have  not  only  seen  that  the  tendency  of  the  doo 
trine  of  Mr.  C.  is  to  anathematize  «//,  who  do  not  receive 
and  obey  it,  but  that  he  himself  declares  all  such  to  be 
in  "  a  state  of  condemnation."  Now  the  word  of  God 
declares  that  he  dwells  with  and  saves  such  as  are  con- 
trite in  spirit.  Hence  the  doctrine  in  question,  if  true, 
must  lead  to  one  of  two  conclusions,  either  that  among 
all  that  portion  of  the  Christian  world,  w^ho  do  not  prac- 
tise immersion,  (and  that  too  under  a  belief  that  it  is  the 
only  method  of  obtaning  pardon  of  sin,  as  well  as  de- 
liverance from  its  defilement,)  there  never  has  been,  one 
truly  humble  and  contrite  person,  or  if  there  have  been, 
as  few  will  doubt,  many  of  this  character,  who  have  ne- 


172 


DEBATE  OPT 


ver  been  immersed,  then  the  numerous  declarations  of 
the  word  of  God  in  relation  to  the  special  favor  with 
which  he  is  said  to  regard  such,  are  not  true. 

It  was  therefore  left  with  the  audience,  as  it  is  now 
with  the  reader,  to  judge,  whether  the  Bishop's  doctrine  ., 
does  appear  to  partake  more  of  the  spirit  of  Popery,  than 
of  the  charitable  spirit  of  the  gospel,  and  whether  a  strong 
presumption  does  not  hence  arise,  that  it  is  not  true, 

Mr.  C.,  in  his  reply  to  this  presumptive  proof,  did  not  ' 
deny,  that  the  consequences  of  his  doctrine  in  its  bearing 
upon  the  state  or  condition  of  all  who  did  not  receive  it, 
had  been  truly  stated;  and  for  the  plain  reason,  that  they 
had  been  stated  in  his  own  words.  Nor  did  he  un- 
dertake to  vindicate  it  against  the  charge  of  uncharita- 
bleness,  so  far  as  his  observations  can  now  be  recollect- 
ed; nor  does  he  in  his  narrative  give  any  hint  that  he 
made  any  attempt  of  the  kind.  But  with  a  view  of  mar- 
king the  best  show  of  defence  he  was  able,  or  with  a  view 
to  excite  the  prejudice  of  the  audience  against  myself  as 
a  reputed  high-toned  predestinarian  or  fatalist,  or  with  an 
intention  to  divert  me  from  my  purpose,  and  to  change 
the  subject  under  discussion,  he  resorted  to  recrimination 
instead  of  argument,  by  making  some  statement  concern^ 
ing  the  doctrine  of  predestination,  to  show,  as  he  informs 
the  readers  of  his  narrative,  "  how  illy  [ill]  it  became"  . 
me  "  to  talk  about  the  charitableness  of  systems:"  Mr.  C. 
seemed  anxious  to  conceal  from  the  view  of  the  audience 
the  fact  that  he  was  called  in  consequence  of  his  own 
invitation  to  defend  ms  system,  and  that  however  "  illy" 
it  became  me  to  raise  objections,  it  certainly  "  became^ 
him  to  vindicate  it,  if  in  his  power.  He  also  lost  sight  of 
another  thing  which  made  a  wide  difference  between 
him  and  myself,  as  well  as  the  doctrine  we  respectively 
hold,  even  upon  the  supposition  that  I  had  embraced  the 
most  odious  and  frightful  caricature  of  predestination, 
that  ever  was  drawn  even  by  the  Bishop  himself.  It 
had  never  been  held  or  inculcated,  by  myself  or  any 
consistent  Calvinist,  that  all  who  did  not  believe  in  the 
doctrine  of  predestination,  were  "  in  a  state  of  condemna- 


CAMPBELLISM. 


173 


t20R "  as  had  been  frequently  asserted  by  him,  both  m 
his  public  addresses  and  writings,  concerning  all  that 
were  not  immersed.  On  the  contrary,  it  is  believed  by 
us  Calvinists,  and  we  rejoice  in  the  belief,  that  there  are 
thousands  of  the  "  excellent  of  the  earth,"  who  do  not, 
and  who  cannot,  with  the  views  which  they  take  of  the 
word  of  God,  embrace  this  doctrine. 

By  way  of  a  passing  reply  to  the  observations  of  Mr. 
C,  upon  this  subject,  it  was  simply  remarked  to  the  au- 
dience, that  the  views  of  Calvinists,  or  at  least  of  Pres- 
byterians, in  relation  to  this  doctrine,  w^ere  greatly  mis- 
understood l)y  some,  and  principally  through  the  misre- 
presentations of  others.  That  they,  in  common  with  all 
other  evangelical  Christians,  rejected  the  dogma  that  any 
of  the  decrees  of  God  stood  in  the  way  of  man's  salva- 
tion. And  for  the  true  extent  of  the  charity,  not  only  of 
the  body  of  Christians  to  which  I  belong,  but  of  all  the 
evangelical  reformed  churches^  my  opponent,  as  well  as 
the  audience,  were  referred  to  the  declaration  of  an 
apostle,  (Acts  34:3.5,)  "  Of  a  truth  I  perceive  that  God  is 
no  respecter  of  persons:  but  in  every  nation,  he  that 
feareth  him  and  worketh  righteousness,  is  accepted  with 
him."  In  reply,  Mr.  C.  read  a  detached  paragraph  from 
our  Confession  of  Faith,  and  therewith  ended  his  attempt 
to  digress  from  the  subject  under  discussion. 

I  next  proceeded  to  prove  the  falsehood  of  the  doc- 
trine, that  "  to  he  *  horn  again,  and  to  he  immersed  art 
the  same  thing,''^  from  the  word  of  God.  The  first  pas- 
sage adduced  for  this  purpose,  was  the  conversation  of 
our  Lord  with  Nicodemus,  as  contained  in  the  3d  chapter 
of  John;  although  it  was  well  known  that  Mr.  C.  pretend- 
ed to  deduce  from  the  same  conversation,  one  of  hk< 
chief  arguments  in  support  of  the  position  which  brJ 
been  affirmed  to  be  false.  This,  as  has  been  stated  al- 
ready, he  shortly  before  attempted  in  a  public  harangue, 
delivered  in  the  same  house.  On  that  occasion,  appa- 
rently with  a  view  to  avoid  the  appearance  of  texivmv 
preaching,  against  which  he  so  repeatedly  raises  a  loud 
outcry,  he  affected  to  take  a  view  of  the  whole  conversa- 
16 


174 


DEliATE  G2f 


tion;  but  when  he  had  reached  the  5th  verse  he  proceeded 
no  fun  her  iii  his  pretended  lecture.  But  at  great  length  cri- 
deavored  trom  that  text,  to  show  that  tube  born  of  water,, 
meant  immersion,  w^hile  that  part  of  the  text  which 
speaks  /*  of  the  Spirit,"  seemed  to  be  regarded,  if  regard- 
ed at  all,  as  a  matter  of  minor  importance.  With  a 
view,  therefore,  as  well  to  counteract  any  iiiipression 
that  might  have  been  made  by  that  discourse  upon  the 
minds  of  any  tlien  present,  as  to  prove  the  unsoundness 
of  Iiis  doctrine,  it  was  contended  that  whatever  was  the 
true  meaning  of  the  phrase  "  born  of  water,"  it  was  de- 
m.)ii5trablc  from  the  tenor  of  the  wJutle  conversation  of 
our  Lord  with  Nicodemus,  that  when  Jesus  assured  him 
that  "  except  a  man  be  born  again  he  cannot  see  the 
kingd.>m  of  God,"  lie  did  not  mean  that  this  ruler  of  the 
Jews  should  understand  that  the  meaning  of  the  words, 
"  horn  again*'  was  iminirs'on  in  water.  No  sooner  did 
Jesus  propose  this  important  doctrine  to  the  Pharisee 
who  had  come  to  him  for  instruction  upon  the  most  im- 
portant of  all  subjects,  and  too  under  a  just  conviction 
that  he  was  a  teacher  come  from  God,  than  he  began  to 
raise  objections,  "  How  can  a  man  be  born  when  he  is 
oW  can  he  enter  the  second  time  into  his  mother's 
womh  and  be  born'"  The  Divine  teacher  perceiving 
that  he  was  altogether  misunderstood,  proceeded  as  well 
to  exnlain,  as  to  reiterate  and  enforce  his  doctrine.  Giv- 
ing^ Nicodemus  clearly  to  understand  that  it  was  not  a 
natural,  but  a  spiritual  birth  that  was  insisted  on,  as  es- 
sentially necessary  to  qualify  a  man  for  the  kingdom  of 
God.  Jesus  an  Ave  red,  verily,  verily,  I  say  unto  thee, 
exceot  a  man  be  born  of  water,  and  of  the  Spirit,  he 
cannot  enter  into  the  kingdom  of  God.  That  which  is 
born  of  the  flesh  is  flesh,  and  that  which  is  bom  of  the 
Spirit  is  spirit.  Marvel  not  that  I  said  unto  thee,  ye 
mus^  be  born  acrain.  The  wind  bloweth  where  it  listeth, 
and  thou  hearest  the  sound  thereof,  but  canst  not  tell 
whence  it  come:h,  and  whither  it  goeth,  so  is  every  one 
that  is  born  of  the  Spirit." 

Thus  the  "  Teacher  sent  from  God,"  either  gave  to  this 


CABTPBELLISH. 


175 


inquirer  for  the  truth,  all  the  jexplanation  and  illus  rajkm 
of  which  the  proposed  doctrine  was  susceptible,  or  all 
that  infinite  Wisdom  and  Goodness  thought  proper  upon 
that  occasion  to  afford.  Surely,  then,  we  would  be 
ready  to  conclude,  that  he  was  not  only  now  fully  under- 
stood by  Nicodemus,  but  that  all  his  difficulties  and  all 
his  objections  were  removed.  But  so  far  was  all  this  frona 
the  fact,  that  his  perplexity  of  mind  seemed  only  to  be 
increased.  Instead  of  accepting  the  explanation  given, 
instead  of  acknowledging  the  importance  of  the  doc- 
trine, or  ceasing  to  marvel  that  Jesus  said,  and  had  said 
again  :  "  Ye  must  be  born  again,"  he  replied,  "  How  can 
these  things  be?"  Now^  it  is  asked,  whether  any  person 
w^hose  mind  is  free  from  the  delusions  of  Campbellisni, 
can  believe,  that  if  our  Saviour  had  intended  to  teach 
Nicodemus  the  doctrine  contended  for  by  the  Bishop, 
he  would  hav«  left  his  mind  to  labor  under  per- 
plexity and  doubt,  especially  as  he  could  hnd  no- 
thing in  the  law,  or  the  prophets,  or  the  Old  Testa- 
ment scriptures,  to  lead  him  to  the  conclusion,  ihat  by 
being  "  horri  again,'^  he  was  to  understand  immersion  in 
\vater?  Would  not  the  compassionate  Jesus  have  replied 
to  this  effecf:  Be  not  so  filled  wiih  surprise,  Nicodemus, 
nor  indulge  the  supposition  that  it  is  impossible  for  a  man 
to  be  borfif  even  when  he  is  old,  in  the  sense  in  which  I 
use  the  word;  all  that  is  intended  thereby,  is  immersion. 
You  say  that  I  am  *  a  teacher  come  from  God,'  and  you 
say  well,  for  so  I  am.  But  I  am  still  more, — your  long 
expected  Messiah.  Read  the  prophecies,  compare  dates, 
examine  my  pretensions,  and  ascertain  for  yourself  a 
knowledge  of  the  fact,  that  I  am  the  Son  of  God;  and  if 
vou  can  historically  believe  that  fact,  and  thereupon  be 
immersed,  (by  whom  it  matters  not,  so  that  it  be  another 
historical  believer  of  the  same  sect,)  you  will  then  be 
born  again,  both  of  the  water  and  of  the  spirit,  and  you 
will  forthwith  be  '  pardoned,  adopted,  justified,  sanctified 
and  saved,'  whereas,  until  you  be  thus  immersed,  you 
must  remain  in  '  a  state  of  condemnation.'  "  Now,  it  is 
asked  again,  if  this  be  not  the  doctrine  of  Mr.  C,  fairly 


176 


DEBATE  OiT 


Stated?  and  whether  if  this  explanation  had  been  given 
to  Nicodemus,  he  could  any  longer  have  mistaken  the 
meaning  of  his  teacher,  or  any  further  indulged  his 
doubts  concerning  the  practicabihty  of  what  was  i^equired 
to  qualify  a  man  for  the  kingdom*  of  God?  Would  he 
not  have  said,  is  this  all?  I  have  indeed  my  doubts, 
whether  this  teacher,  notwithstanding  the  miracles  he 
does,  be  indeed  the  Messiah,  the  child  that  was  long 
since  foretold  should  be  born  of  a  virgin,  the  Son  that 
should  be  given,  upon  whose  shoulders  the  government 
should  be,  and  whose  name  should  "  be  called  Wonder- 
ful, Counsellor,  the  Mighty  God,  the  Everlasting  Father, 
tiie  Prince  of  Peace."  But  as  this  teacher  "seems  to 
make  the  way  into  the  kingdom  of  heaven,  not  only  so 
plain,  but  so  easy  and  so  cheap,  it  certainly  desen-es  a 
serious  inquiry  whether  his  pretensions  be  just,  and  if  I 
can  but  satisfy  my  mind  as  to  the  truth  of  the  fact,  that 
he  is  the  Son  of  God,  I  shall  have  no  difficulty  in  com- 
}>iying  with  what  he  requires.  Thus,  we  may  safely 
conclude,  Nicodemus  would  have  reasoned,  for  thus  would 
any  man  of  common  sense  have  reasoned,  who  had  tiie 
lea3t  desire  to  know  the  truth  and  save  his  soul  alive. 

And  the  only  difference,  let  it  just  be  remarked,  between 
the  situation  of  an  anxious  inquirer  for  truth,  seeking 
knowledge  at  the  lips,  or  from  the  writings  of  the  Bishop, 
and  that  which  would  have  been  the  situation  of  Nicode- 
mus, had  the  above,  or  a  similar  explanation,  been  given 
him  by  the  teacher  come  from  God,  consists  in  this,  the 
latter  would  probably  still  have  had  his  doubts  concern- 
ing the  fact,  that  Jesus  was  the  Son  of  God,  while  the 
former,  as  well  he  might,  would  be  slow  to  believe  that 
the  Bishop  of  Bethany  was  a  true  faithful  interpreter 
of  His  doctrine. 

But  returning  from  this  digression,  let  us  see  what  was 
llie  reply  of  the  Saviour  to  the  inquiry  of  Nicodemus, 
ijidicating  so  much  distressing  doubt  and  perplexity. 
"  Art  thou  a  master  of  Israel,  and  knowest  not  these 
things?"  This,  certainly,  implies  that  Jesus  brought  no- 
Be\T  thing,  or  any  doctrine  that  had  not  been  revealed  in 


CAMPBELLIS«, 


the  Old  Testament  scriptures,  to  his  ears.  Tliat  he  did 
not  require  oi  him  any  qualification  for  the  kingdom  of 
God,  of  which  his  saints  in  all  ages  had  not  been  the  sub- 
jects. That  it  was  but  reas<  .nab'.o,  especially  consideriBg 
his  special  advantages,  and  the  o;iice  he  held  among  isi^ 
own  people,  to  expect  that  he  understood  the  impcriaut 
subject  about  which  our  Lord  had  been  conversing,  evea 
as  had  all  the  Old  Testament  saints.  And  this  fully 
answers  the  inquiry  that  may  arise  in  the  minds  of  soEUje, 
why  our  Lord  did  not  give  Nicodemus  a  more  full  and 
satisfactory  explanation  of  his  doctrine?  It  was  not  ne- 
cessary: God  had  already  declared  by  his  servant  David, 
and  caused  it  to  be  recorded  in  the  25th  Psalm,  that 
**  the  meek  he  will  guide  in  judgment,  and  the  meek  he 
will  teach  his  way."  Had  Nicodemus,  tliereforc,  ifi- 
quired  for  the  truth  vviih  the  same  mt^ekness  and  earnesl* 
ness,  that  David  did,  when,  in  the  language  of  this  sam^ 
psalm,  he  prayed:  "  S1k)W  me  thy  ways,  O  Lord;  teach 
me  thy  paths.  I^ad  me  in  thy  truth  and  teach  me  :  fcr 
thou  art  the  God  of  my  salvation;  on  thee  do  I  wait  ali 
the  day;"  and  with  the  sa  ue  sense  of  his  dependency 
upon,  and  his  need  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  not  only  to  guide 
and  teach,  but  to  quicken  and  sanctify  his  soul,  that  this 
humble  Psalmist  felt,  when  in  the  language  of  the  51st 
Psalm,  he  prayed:  Take  not  away  thy  Holy  Spirit 
from  me?" — there  can  be  no  doubt,  he  would  have 
known  by  a  happy  experience,  the  things  about  whic^ 
his  Divine  teacher  condescended  to  converse  with  him. 
Thus  he  would  have  understood  the  Saviour  to  have 
spoken,  not  of  a  natural,  but  of  a  spiritual  birth,  implying 
a  change  of  condition,  not  less,  but  mere  important  than 
Viat  of  being  brought  from  the  darkness  and  continement 
of  the  mother's  womb,  to  the  light  and  varied  enjoyments 
of  this  natural  world.  For  he  would  then,  like  David, 
have  lieea  taui^^ht  by  the  word  and  Holy  Spirit,  that 
while  God  desired  *'  truth  in  tlie  inward  parts,  he  was 
shapen  in  iniquity,  and  in  did  his  mother  conceive 
him;"  and  this  would  have  led  him  to  pray,  as  did  David, 
^  Create  in  nae  a  clean  heart,  and  renew  a  right  -spirit 

*16 


178 


DEBATE  OX 


within  me,"  and  as  God  had  promised  by  his  sen-ants 
\}ie  prophets,  to  give  to  such  of  the  house  of  Israel  as 
would  seek  the  blessing  at  his  liands,  a  new  lieari  and  a 
new  spirit,  and  to  put  his  own  Spirit  witliin  them,  &c., 
there  can  be  no  doubt  but  that  his  prayer  would  have 
been  answered,  and  that  he  would  have  understood  his  ^ 
divine  teacher  as  speaking  of  the  work  of  the  Spirit  of 
God,  renewing  and  cleansing  the  heart,  when  he  explain- 
ed the  expression,  "bom  again,"  by  being  "born  of  water 
and  of  tlie  Spirit."  He  would  have  understood  that  by 
being  "  born  again,"  nothing  more  or  less  was  intended, 
than  that  great  and  astonishing  change,  which  can  only 
be  eiiected  by  the  power  and  quickening  grace  of  the 
Spirit  of  God,  the  eiibct  of  which  is  the  })roduction  of  a 
jiew  heart — a  clean  heart,  in  which  the  law  of  God  is 
written,  upon  which  the  image  of  God  is  renewed,  and 
in  which  the  Spirit  himself  makes  his  abode;  a  change, 
which  both  in  the  Old  and  New  Testaments,  is  repre- 
sented by  a  creation,  a  new  creation  of  that  which  had 
been  destro}'ed.  And  in  the  New  Testament,  by  a  pass- 
ing from  a  state  of  darkness  into  God's  marvellous  light; 
by  a  deliverance  from  the  power  of  darkness,  and  a  tran- 
slation into  the  kingrdom  of  God's  dear  Son;  by  a  quick- 
ening to  a  state  of  life,  fi-om  a  state  of  death  in  trespasses 
ani  sins,  &c. 

Nor  would  the  mind  of  Nicodemus,  had  he  thus 
been  taucrht  of  God,  as  was  David  and  as  were  all  the 
Old  Testament  saints,  have  been  perplexed  by  the  allu- 
sion made  by  Jesus  to  w^ater,  when  it  is  recollected  how 
many  allusions  to  that  element  we  find  in  the  Old 
Testament,  which  cannot  be  understood  literally,  as  well 
a<?  the  ii^ashirio-s  therein  enjoined  and  even  prayed  for. 
WashincTS  not  of  the  body  only,  but  of  the  heart.  "  Wash 
mo  thorouirhlv  from  mine  inicjuity  and  cleanse  me  from 
my  sin.  Wash  me  and  I  shall  be  whiter  than  snow,'^ 
wa>  the  prayer  of  David  when  opj)ressed  with  a  sens:^  of 
sin  and  moral  pollution.  "  O  Jerusalem,  wash  thy  heart 
from  wickedness,  that  thou  mayest  be  saved,"  was  the 
command  of  God,  (Jeren^iah  4:1 1.)  This  could  be  effect- 


CAMPBELLISM. 


179 


ed  by  no  outward  ablutions.  This  David  well  knew,  as 
appears  from  his  prayer  that  God  would  wash  him,  vS:c, 
It  was  e(]Lially  understood  by  Job,  when  h.e  declared, 
(chap.  9:30,81.)  "  If  I  wash  myself  with  snow  water,  and 
make  my  hands  never  so  clean:  yet  shalt  thou  plunge 
me  in  the  ditch,  and  my  own  clothes  shall  abhor  me," 
TJie  same  is  still  more  emphatically  declared  by  God 
himself  to  the  Jews,  by  his  prophet  Jeremiah,  (chap.  2:22,) 
"  For  though  thou  wash  thee  with  nitre  and  take  ihee 
much  soap,  yet  thine  iniquity  is  marked  before  me,  saith 
tJie  Lord  God."  The  question  then  arises,  how  was  this 
great  object  to  be  effected,  and  this  indispensable  recjuire- 
ment  of  God  to  be  performed?  The  only  answer  is,  tliat 
with  regard  to  such  as  acknowledged  that  they  had  sinned 
and  destroyed  themselves,  and  that  in  God  alone  was  their 
help,  and  who  cried  to  him,  as  did  David,  for  deliverance 
from  their  sin,  God  was  pleased  to  promise  to  do  it  for 
them.  The  manner  in  which  he  would  do  this,  is  declared 
by  the  mouth  of  another  prophet,  (Ezek.  36:25,26,)  "  Then 
will  I  sprinkle  clean  water  upon  you,  and  ye  shall  be 
clean;  from  all  your  filthiness,  and  from  all  your  idols 
will  I  cleanse  you.  A  new  heart  also  will  I  give  you, 
and  a  new  spirit  will  I  put  within  you;  and  I  wnll  take 
away  the  stony  heart  out  of  your  flesfi,  and  I  will  gi\'e 
you  a  heart  of  flesh.  And  I  will  put  my  Spirit  within 
you,  and  cause  you  to  walk  in  my  statutes,  and  ye  shall 
k'eep  my  judgments,  and  do  them."  Here  then  is  not 
only  tlie  gracious  promise  of  God,  but  an  account  or  de- 
scription of  the  process  whereby  he  would  wash  or 
cleanse  the  hearts,  or  in  other  words,  whereby  he  would 
G^ve  a  new  heart.  And,  it  is  presumed,  Mr.  C.  himself, 
would  not,  in  this  instance,  understand  the  declaration 
that  God  would  "  sprinkle  clean  water,"  &c.  lileralty, 
then  the  heart  of  every  man,  wdiether  Jew  or  Gen- 
tile, is  alike — equally  "  stony,"  "  deceitful  above  all  things 
and  desperately  wicked;"  for  "  as  in  water  face  nn- 
st^reth  to  face,  so  the  heart  of  man  to  man;"*  it  folloavs 

•  ProT.  27:19. 


DEBATE  ON 


that,  every  one  that  ever  has  obtained  this  new  heart,  or 
has  been  born  of  the  Spirit,  has  been  the  subject  of  the 
same  gracious  work,  or  process  above  described.  Ac- 
cordingly such  as  truly  received  the  Saviour  upon  his 
advent  into  the  world,  or  such  as  believed  on  his  naiiic, 
are  described  by  John,  (chap.  1:13,)  as  having  been 
**  born,  not  of  blood,  nor  of  the  will  of  the  fiesh,  nor  of 
the  will  of  man,  but  of  God."  This  declaration  by  a 
writer  of  the  gospel,  as  well  as  that  by  the  prophet,  leads 
to  the  conclusion  that  the  allegation  that  the  literal  inter- 
vention of  water  is  indispensably  necessary  to  effect  this 
birth,  which  is  of,  and  from  God,  and  God  alone,  is  not 
truth,  but  a  fable,  "  cminingly  devised,'''  to  deceive  unsta- 
ble souls,  and  calculated  to  induce  them  to  rest  U})on  the 
mere  external  attendance  of  the  ordinances  of  God,  or, 
in  other  words,  to  be  content  with  "  a  form  of  godhness," 
■while  they  deny  its  powder. 

It  was  still  further  observed,  upon  this  conversation  of 
Jesus  with  Nicodemus,  that  if  Mr.  C.'s  doctrines  were 
true,  it  would  be  strange  that  the  only  illustration  which 
the  Saviour  gave  of  his  doctrine,  was  drawn  not  from  the 
water,  but  the  vind.   "  The  wind  bloweth  where  it  listeth 
and  thou  hearest  the  sound  thereof,  but  canst  not  tell 
whence  it  cometh,  and  whither  it  goeth,  so  is  every  one 
that  is  born  of  the  Spirit."    This  declaration  certainly 
was  designed  to  teach  Nicodemus,  and  to  teach  us,  that 
though  there  was  no  more  reason  to  doubt  the  reahty  of 
this  new  birth,  than  to  doubt  the  existence  of  the  wind, 
still  there  was  something  in  its  nature,  and  the  manner 
whereby  it  was  effected,  that  could  not  be  fully  under- 
stood even  by  the  subject  of  it;  although  he  may  be  assur- 
ed of  its  having  taken  place,  by  the  effects  produced  upon 
his  heart,  and  consequently,  upon  his  whole  character 
and  conduct.    But  if  to  be  born  again  and  immersion  be 
the  same  thing,  the  illustration  would  seem  to  admit  of 
no  application  to  the  subject.    Surely  there  is  nothing  in 
the  act  and  attending  circumstances  of  immersion,  that 
cannot  be  fully  understood.    The  doctrine  which  was, 
and  is  now  contended  to  be  false,  makes  all  the  cbaoge 


CAMPBELLISM. 


181 


produced  by  the  new  birth  to  be  outward — the  object  of 
the  senses — and  certainly  it  may,  in  that  case,  be  known 
to  the  senses  of  men,  as  well  such  as  are  the  subjects 
of  it,  as  those  who  are  spectators,  "  whence  it  cometk" 
And  this  seems  to  be  the  view  which  the  Bishop  himself 
takes  of  this  subject.  In  his  Millenial  Harbinger,  Extra, 
No.  1,  he  represents  the  change  as  a  matter  of  senses 
leaving  no  doubt  upon  the  mind  of  the  person  immersed, 
that  he  is  born  of  God.  He  consequently,  and  no  doubt 
truly,  describes  his  converts  as  being  free  from  thos6 
doubts  about  their  being  in  favor  with  God,  with  which 
evangehcal  Christians,  through  weakness  of  faith,  or  in 
limes  of  temptation  and  spiritual  desertion,  are  often 
harassed.  If  a  Campbellite  convert  be  inquired  of  con- 
cerning the  reason  of  the  hope  that  is  in  him,  his  bishop 
informs  us,  he  is  ready  to  answer,  I  believed  historically 
the  fact,  that  Jesus  is  the  Son  of  God,  and  I  was  there- 
upon immersed,  and  therefore  I  can  no  more  doubt  that 
I  am  born  of  God,  than  I  can  doubt  the  fact  of  my  im- 
mersion. And  Mr.  C,  moreover,  illustrates  the  cliange 
as  being  the  object  of  the  senses,  by  the  supposed  case  of  a 
man,  who,  in  the  act  of  changing  his  residence  by  removing 
from  Pennsylvania  to  Virginia,  by  crossing  an  arbitrary 
and  ideal  boundary,  is  not  sensible  of  the  transition,  as 
contrasted  with  that  of  a  man  making  a  similar  change 
from  Virginia  to  Ohio,  by  swimming  the  river  which 
forms  the  natural  boundary  between  the  States  last 
mentioned.  The  person  last  supposed,  he  informs  his 
readers,  "  immediately  realizes  the  change."*  This  sup- 
posed change  from  a  state  of  condemnation  to  the  favor 
of  God,  may  suit  the  views  of  such  as  wish  to  find  an 
<^sy  way  to  heaven;  but  if  it  be  true,  the  declaration  of 
our  Saviour  that  "  strait  is  the  gate  and  narrow  is  the 
way  which  leadeth  to  life,  and  few  there  be  that  find  it," 
is  made  void. 

It  was  thus  attempted  to  be  shown,  that  this  conversa- 
tion of  our  Lord  with  Nicodemus,  (upon  a  detached  pas- 


•  See  Millenial  Harbinger. 


182 


DEBATE  ON 


sage,  on  which,  with  a  few  other  texts,  Mr.  C.  attempts 
to  build  his  watery  system.)  when  properly  viewed, 
proved  the  unsoundness  and  utter  worthlessness  of  the 
doctrine,  that  would  make  baptism  or  immersion  identical 
with  being  born  of  God,  and  that  it  would  lead  the  mind 
to  the  satisfactory  conclusion,  that  the  birth  there  spoken 
of,  is  of  a  higher  and  nobler  and  more  spiritual  nature, 
tlian  Mr.  C.  seems  to  have  formed  any  conception  ol". 
And  that  by  the  expression  of  our  Saviour,  "  bo?ii  of 
n  ater^^-  if  it  have  aiiy  allusion  to  baptism,  (which  it  may, 
or  may  not,  for  any  thing  we  know,)  it  is  merely,  as 
water  in  that  ordinance  is,  emblematical,  or  the  outward 
sign  of  the  inward  seal  and  grace  of  the  Holy  Spirit, 
which  the  subject  of  this  ordinance,  when  baptized  in 
adult  age,  is  supposed  already  to  have  received.  Thus 
we  know,  and  especially  from  the  declaration  of  our 
Lord  himself,  that  water  is  the  emblem  of  the  Spirit^ 
(John  7:38,39.)  "  He  that  believeth  on  me,  out  of  his 
belly  shall  flow  rivers  of  hving  water.  But  this  spake 
he  of  the  Spirit,  which  they  that  believe  on  him  sliould 
receive,"  &c.  In  the  same  way  we  must  understand 
our  Lord  in  his  con^^ersa^ion  with  the  woman  of  Sama- 
ria. (John  4.)  Water  then  being  the  divinely  appointed 
emblem  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  his  saving  influences, 
we  may  see  not  only  how  beautiful  and  appropriate  it  is, 
in  general,  but  especially  as  it  is  used  according  to  the 
divine  command  in  baptism.  There  are,  especially,  two 
great  or  principal  uses  to  which  it  is  applied,  for  support- 
ing our  natural  life  and  promoting  its  comfort — to  quench 
thirst,  and  to' cleanse  from  natural  pollution.  Corres- 
ponding to  these,  water  is  used  as  well  to  represent  those 
mfluences  of  the  Spirit,  which  satisfy  the  soul  that  thirsts 
for  God,  "  Ho  every  one  that  thirsteth  come  ye  to  tlie 
waters,"  &c.,  as  that  grace  of  the  same  Spirit,  whero- 
hy  a  sinner  is  quickened  and  sanctified,  "  I  will  sprinkle 
clean  water  upon  you,"  &c.  In  the  former  case  it  is 
represented  as  being  drunk  by  the  thirsty,  in  the  latter 
case,  as  being  applied  to  cleanse  away  the  filth  of  such 
)as  are  polluted,    And  such  is  evidently  the  emblematical 


CAMPBELLISM. 


^89 


use  of  water  in  the  ordinance  of  baptism.  The  apphca- 
tion,  or  use  ot"  water,  changes  not  the  actual  moral  or 
spiritual  condition  of  its  subject.  It  is  received  or  at- 
tended upon,  when  done  intelUgently  and  in  adult  years, 
even  as  Abraham  received  the  sign  of  circumcision,  "  a 
seal  of  the  righteousness  of  the  faith  which  he  had  yet 
being  uncircuiricised."  It  is  not,  however,  intended  to 
be  denied,  but  that  an  attendance  upon  this  ordinance 
does  produce  an  outward  change  upon  the  condition  of 
its  subject,  inasmuch  as  it  is  the  only  method  of  gaining 
admittance  into  the  visible  church  or  kingdom  of  God  in 
this  world;  but  I  now  only  o})pose  the  doctrine  of  Mr. 
C,  that  it  is  in  addition  to  this,  the  only  converting  ordi- 
nance, as  well  as  means  or  way  of  passing  out  of  a  state 
of  condemnation,  into  that  of  favor  with  God. 

In  opposition  to  this  view  or  explanation  of  the  con- 
versation of  Jesus  with  Nicodemus,  it  was  contended  by 
Mr.  C.  that  the  expression,  "  horn  of  water  in  connection 
with  other  passages  of  the  New  Testament,  (which  will 
be  noticed  in  the  sequel,)  fully  supported  his  doctrine, 
that  the  expression  must  be  understood  literally.  And 
in  proof  of  this,  he  contended  that  the  whole  of  the  (5th) 
verse,  must  be  understood  in  the  same  way,  or  be  inter- 
preted upon  the  same  principle.  That  is,  it  must  either 
be  literal  or  figurative  throughout.  Thus  if  to  be  "  born 
of  water,"  be  a  figurative  expression,  so  must  that  of  be- 
ing born  of  the  Spirit,  with  which  it  is  connected.  He 
further  contended,  it  would  be  an  unwarrantable  use  to 
make  of  the  scriptures,  to  interpret  one  part  of  the  same 
passage  figuratively  and  another  literally.  He  further 
contended  that  by  the  expression  "  born  of  water j'^  we 
were  to  understand  our  Saviour  to  mean  immersion.  In 
proof  of  this  position,  although  he  professed  to  derive 
some  collateral  support  from  Titus  3:5.  Eph.  5:26,  and  a 
few  other  passages  which  will  be  examined  hereafter,  his 
main  reliance,  contrary  to  his  repeated  declarations,  evi- 
dently was  not  upon  the  s(5riptures,  but  human  authority. 
And  it  may  here  be  remarked,  as  a  matter  justly  to  be 
doubted,  whether  another  instance  can  readily  be  pro- 


184 


DEBATE  OS 


duced  of  a  man  making  such  frequent  and  loud  professfona 
of  his  sole  rehance  on  the  word  of  God;  yet  at  the  same 
time  making  such  a  sj^aring  use  of  the  scriptures,  and 
such  a  frequent  exhibition  of  human  autliorities,  an  did 
Mr.  C.  upon  that  occasion. 

Thus  he  contended,  again  and  again,  that  all  antiqui* 
ty  considered  Titus  3:5,  and  John  3:5,  as  referring  to 
immersio/i.  lie  moreover  attempted  to  show  that  bo- 
cause  I  would  not  uni]ualifiodly  admit  that  these  passages 
referred  to  baptism,  I  was  op}:)osing  my  own  creed,  inas- 
much as  they  are  referred  to  in  our  Confession  of  Faith, 
in  proof  of  that  view  of  the  nature  of  baptism  which  is 
hold  by  the  Presbyterian  church.  Having  thus,  in  his 
own  view,  established  that  being  "  born  of  water,"  had 
an  exclusive  reference  to  immersion,  he  contended  that 
no  person  can  be  "  born  again,"  until  he  be  immersed. 
That  a  person  could  not  be  said  to  be  born  of  watCF, 
until  first  having  been  buried  or  immersed  in  that  ele- 
ment, he  was  raised  or  brought  forth  out  of  it.  By  way 
of  illustration,  or  proof  of  this,  he  referred  to  that  passage 
in  tlie  New  Testament,  which  describes  our  Saviour  as 
"  tlio  first  born  from  the  dead." 

But  inasmuch  as  Jesus,  by  way  of  explanation  or  cd-. 
forcement  of  the  doctrine,  that  "  Except  a  man  be  born 
again,  he  cannot  see  the  kingdom  of  God,"  had  declare^l 
in  reply  to  the  objection  of  Nicodemus,  "  Except  a  man 
be  born  of  water  and  of  the  Spirit,  he  cannot  enter  into 
the  kingdom  of  God."  And  inasmuch  as  it  had  been 
observed,  that  the  principal  illustration  given  by  our  Sa- 
viour of  his  doctrine,  had  been  taken,  not  from  water, 
but  the  wind,  Mr.  C.,  so  far  as  he  could  be  understood  upon 
this  part  of  the  subject,  seemed  to  contend  that  it  would, 
as  a  matter  of  course,  if  not  necessarily  follow,  that  a 
person  thus  immersed  or  "  born  of  water,"  would  also  bo 
born  of  the  Spirit.  He  remarked,  (and  his  remark  was 
true,)  that  the  same  Greek  word  which  is  used  to  desig- 
nate the  Spirit  of  Go'A,  also  means  the  wind.  Hence  lie 
contended,  that  as  a  child,  as  soon  as  it  is  naturally  born, 
breathes  the  atmosphere  or  common  air,  which  in  sub- 


CAMPBELLI5M. 


185 


siance  is  the  same  with  tlie  w  ind,  so  as  soon  as  a  per>-oR 
i«  "  born  of  water,"  he  is  introduced  kito  a  spiritual  ar- 
rnosphere,  and  is  to  all  intents  and  purposes  born  again. 
While  he  contended  that  a  person  cannot  be  born  again, 
or  born  of  God,  or  obtain  his  favor  or  the  forgiveness  of 
sins,  until  he  be  immersed;  yet  he  not  only  admitted,  but 
contended,  that  before,  or  without  immersion,  he  may  be 
begotten  of  God,  arid  his  mind  impregnated  by  the  vi  ord 
of  truth,  and  for  this  purpose,  he  descanted,  as  lie  informs 
us  in  his  narrat  ve,  "  upon  the  use  of  the  term  begotten, 
in  the  epistles  of  John  and  Peter;  and  '  on  the  fact  that 
water  always  preceded,  in  ajxjstohc  style,  the  uord  and 
the  Spirit,  when  they  occurred  in  the  same  passages.' 

In  reply  to  Mr.  C.,  it  was  contended  that  it  was  no 
unwavrantable  or  unusual  method  of  expounding  the 
scriptures,  to  understand  one  part  of  the  same  |>assage 
jii^uratively,  and  another, /?Yera%.  And  in  proof  of  this, 
a  number  of  passages  were  referred  to,  which  Mr.  C,  it 
was  alleged,  could  not  himself  expound  upon  any  other 
principle.  Thus  the  passage  already  referred  to,  (John 
7:37,39,)  furnishes  a  striking  instance  of  what  is  here 
alleged,  "  He  that  believeth  on  me,  out  of  his  belly  shall 
flow  rivers  of  living  water."  That  the  expre^:sion.  *•  he 
that  believeth  on  me,"  must  be  understood  liierally,  can- 
not be  denied,  and  yet  that  we  are  to  understand  the  re- 
maining part  of  the  passage  figuratimly,  we  have  the 
authority  of  the  inspired  writer  of  the  gospel  liimself 
What  then  becomes  of  Mr.  C.'s  preteiideii  reverence  for 
the  scriptures,  and  his  assertion  about  their  unw^arranta- 
ble  use?  Is  it  not  all  a  mere  feint  to  cover  his  attempt 
to  wrest  these  sacred  oracles  in  support  of  his  all- water 
system.  In  like  manner  Mr.  C.  was  referred  to  the  pas- 
sage in  Ezekiel,  already  cited  at  length,  "  I  will  sprinkle 
clean  water  upon  you,"  &c.  Here  it  was  obser  ved,  it 
was  very  evident  he  could  not  understand  this  expres- 
sion literally,  without  overturning  his  whole  system,  and 
yet  it  was  equally  evident  that  other  parts  of  the  same 
passage,  must  be  understood  literally.  Other  passacres 
were  also  referred  to,  or  were  intended  so  to  be,  \>\^^ 
17 


DEBATE  Oir 


were  passed  over,  either  through  inadvertence  or  wani 
ot  time.  Indeed  many  more  passages  might,  were  it  ut;- 
ce>sary,  be  referred  to,  in  refutation  of  tliis  posiiion  ui 
the  Bishop,  which  seems  to  be  one  of  {he  main  pillars 
\i}>o:\  which  his  worthless  la  brie  is  attempted  to  be 
erected;  I  shall,  however,  trouble  my  readers  by  reli&r- 
rrng  to  two  only,  whicli  are  considered  as  having'  a  very 
particular  bearing,  not  only  upon  this  position  of  Mr.  C, 
but  upon  the  principal  question  discussed.  The  first  is 
found  in  Isa.  44:3,  "  For  I  will  pour  water  upon  him  that 
i:i  thirsty,  and  floods  upon  the  dry  ground:  I  will  pour 
my  Spirit  upon  th}-  seed,  and  my  blessing  upon  thine 
offspring,"  &:c.  Here  the  former  part  of  the  passage  is 
evidently  figurative,  and  contains  substantially  a  pro- 
mise of  the  same  blessings,  or  at  Jeast,.  blessings  of  the 
iidmc  nature  with  those  promised  in  the  falter  part  And" 
what  is  more,  it  not  only  establishes  the  position  that  the 
term  water  is  very  frequent}}-  used  in  the  scriptures  to 
denote  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  his  reviving,  or  quickening^ 
or  sanctifying  grace,  but  it  shows  that  the  same  subject 
is  represented,  or  similar  blessings  of  this  spiritual  nature 
are  promised,  in  the  same  passage,  both  UttraJly  and  f(gu- 
ratimly;  as  well,  therefore,  might  the  Bishop  object  to- 
this  passage  being  considered  as  partly  literal  and  partly 
figurative,  or  contend  that  the  expression,  "  I  will  pour 
water  upon  him  that  is  thirsty,"  <fec.,  did  not  denote  the 
Spirit  of  God,  as  to  object  to  a  like  consideration  of  John 
3:5,  and  a  similar  exposition  of  that  part  of  the  passage,, 
which  speaks  of  being  "  horn  of  water."' 

The  second  passage  alluded  to  is  Matt.  3:11,  "  I  indeed 
baptize  you  with  water  unto  repentance:  but  he  that  cometh 
after  me,  is  mightier  than  I,  &c.,  he  shall  baptize  you 
with  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  with  fire."  This  passage  alone 
seems  fully  sufficient,  not  only  to  refute  the  Bishop^s  rule, 
by  which  alone  he  would  have  the  5th  verse  of  the  3d 
chapter  of  John  expounded,  but,  when  brought  into  con- 
tact with  his  system  of  the  new  birth  by  water,  to  cause 
ii  to  evaporate  and  disappear  as  the  rising  mist  before 
the  beams  of  the  sun.    It  would  seem  that  Mr.  C.  had 


CAUPBELLISM. 


the  same  view  of  the  bearing  of  this  passage  upon  hxs 
scheme.  Indeed  the  force  of  it  could  not  be  resisted, 
and  therefore  it  must  be  evaded  by  wresting  it  from  t^>€ 
plain  and  usual  acceptation  in  which  it  had  been  held  by 
all  parties,  and  rendered  in  all  versions  of  the  New  Tes- 
tament, not  excepting  his  own.  After  substituting  the 
word  immerse  for  baptize,  (which  was  the  rendering  of 
Dr.  George  Campbell,)  the  Bishop  in  his  new  version 
gives  the  following  translation  of  the  same  passage,  "  I 
indeed  immerse  you  in  water  that  you  may  reform;  but 
he  who  comes  after  me  is  mightier  than  I,  whose  shoes 
I  am  not  worthy  to  carry.  He  will  immerse  you  in  the 
Holy  Spirit  and  fire."  Of  this  passage  the  Bishop  hae 
given  in  his  Millennial  Harbinger,  a  gloss,  which  must 
have  been  a  heavy  tax  upon  his  ingenuity,  if  not  upon 
his  conscience,  and  evinces  a  determination  at  all  hazards 
to  deprive  it  of  its  bearing  upon  his  system-  With  a 
view  that  both  parts  of  the  passage  may  be  expounded 
literally,  and  more  especially  as  it  would  seem,  with  a 
^iew  to  prevent  the  same  thing,  viz.  the  Holy  Spirit  in 
his  purifying  influences,  from  having  the  appearance  of 
being  represented  both  iiguratively  and  literally  \n  tht3 
same  passage,  (as  is  evidently  the  case,  as  well  in  th*s 
text,  as  in  John  3:5,)  he  makes  John  the  Baptist  to  say, 
or  at  least  to  mean,  that  he  that  was  coming  after,  (i.  e. 
Jesus  Christ,)  would  immerse  (baptize)  them  in  (with) 
die  Holy  vSpirit;  and  provided  they  did  not  reform  (re- 
pent) he  would  immerse  them  in  hell-fire.  Whether  this 
be  not  merely  wresting,  hut  altering  and  adding  to  the 
sacred  record,  let  not  only  the  learned  who  are  acquaint- 
ed with  the  origin;il  Greek,  but  every  one  of  comman 
sense,  judge.  And  let  the  Bishop  himself  hereafter  blu^li 
when  he  undertakes  to  declaim  against  that  order  of  men„ 
whom  he  most  unjustly  represents  as  claiming  to  have 
the  power  to  remove  the  veil  of  mystery,  in  which  he 
pretends  they  assert  the  word  of  God  to  be  involved,  arsd 
without  which  the  hidden  meaning  cannot  be  discovered. 

It  is  only  necessary  to  say  that  our  version  gives  a 
literal  translation,  with  the  exception  of  the  word  "i/^M^ 


168 


DEBATE  Ojr 


printed  in  italics,  as  is  uniformly  the  case  where  any 
words  have  been  supplied  by  the  translators.  Let  us 
now  for  a  moment  attend  to  the  language  of  the  Baptist, 
"  I  indeed  baptize  you  with  water  unto  repentance,"  or 
a5  the  Bishop,  upon  the  authority  of  Dr.  Campbell,  gives 
it,  that  you  may  reform,"  not  outwardly  alone,  but  in 
heart  and*  in  Hfe. "  As  though  he  had  said"  this,  all  that  I 
a  poor  sinful  man,  (although  none  greater  had  ever  gone 
before  him.)  can  do;  hoping  that  your  profession  of  your 
purpose  to  return  unto  the  Lord,  from  whom  you  have 
deeply  revolted,  is  sincere,  I  administer  this  divinely  ap- 
pointed ordinance  by  the  apphcation  of  water  to  your 
bodies,  which  is  only  an  emblem  or  sign  of  tlie  thing  sig- 
nified, the  blessing  of  the  Spirit  of  God,  which  he  has 
promised  to  give  you.  But  he  that  cometh  after  me, 
that  is  your  promised  and  long  expected  Messiah,  is 
nightier  than  I;  he  will  baptize  you  with  the  Holy  Spirit 
and  fire.  Who  then,  it  is  asked,  was  it  declared  the 
Saviour  would  bapti:;e:  ihe  very  same  persons  that  John 
baptized  unto  repentance,  or  at  least,  such  of  them  as 
were  sincere,  and  not  h\-pocritical  in  their  profession. 
In  what  manner,  it  is  further  asked,  would  he  baptize 
them?  "  With  the  Holy  Ghost  and  fire"  ISow  let  tlie 
reader  judge  whether  the  foregoing  paraphrase  does  not 
speak  the  evident  and  undeniable  meaning  of  this  solemn 
passage  of  the  word  of  God,  and  whether  Mr.  C.  does 
not  stand  convicted  of  having  wilfully  wrested  the  scrip- 
tures? Let  Christians  pray  that  he  may  be  brought  to 
repentance,  and  that  this,  or  any  other  of  his  numerous 
perversions  of  these  sacred  records,  may  not  be  to  hi* 
own  destruction,  or  that  of  others. 

With  regard  to  the  Bishop's  views  of  the  nature  of  the 
new  birth,  and  his  assertion  that  it  could  only  be  eft'ected 
through  the  medium  of  inunersion,  which,  according  to 
his  exposition,  was  intended  by  the  phrase.  "  born  of 
water;"  it  was  remarked  in  the  discussion,  that  his  ideas 
appeared  not  only  to  be  confused,  but  gross,  and  almost 
as  inadequate  as  those  of  Xicodemus.  Indeed,  it  may  be 
here  observed,  once  for  all,  that  when  Mr.  C^  undertook 


CXaPBELLlSH. 


lo  speak  of  spiritual  things,  he  was  as  unintelligible  a? 
we  may  suppose  a  man  blind  from  his  birth  would  tie, 
should  he  undertake  to  lecture  upon  colors.  He  seemed 
to  be  a  perfect  exeinplification  of  the  "  natural  mar..'* 
spoken  of  by  the  great  apostle,  who  receives  not  lite 
things  of  the  Spirit  of  God,  for  they  are  foolishness  unto 
him;  neidier  can  he  know  them,  because  they  are  spiritu- 
ally discerned."  In  confirmation  of  this,  it  may  he 
added,  that  it  was  a  general  impression  upon  the  minds 
of  the  audience,  (his  own  particular  friends  and  followers 
excepted,)  that  he  appeared  to  be  as  igiiorant,  as  desti- 
tute Oi  the  essentials  of  religion  or  true  spirituality. 

Thus  it  seemed,  for  instance,  that  Mr.  C,  in  iormiVig 
his  views  of  the  new  birth,  could  not  divest  his  mii.d, 
(provided  he  really  believed  what  he  advanced  in  rela- 
tion to  the  subject,)  of  the  idea  of  an  outward,  visible,  or 
sensible  analogy  betvreen  this  and  a  natural  birth.  As 
the  birth  of  an  infant  has  respect  to  the  body,  as  well  as 
the  soul,  so  he  referred  the  new  birth  to  the  one,  as  well 
as  the  other,  but  as  it  would  seem,  principally  to  the 
former.  As  the  infant's  body,  when  it  is  born,  comes 
forth  from  its  mother's  womb,  so,  according  to  his  view, 
a  person  cannot  be  born  again  until  he  is  first  bo:  ri  of 
water,"  that  is,  until  his  body  is  first  immersed  and  then 
brought  forth  from  the  vo:nb  of  water.  In  all  this  sup- 
posed mighty  ciiange,  no  divine  agency  is  admitted  or 
required.  It  is  not  (and  that  is  true  enous:h,)  in  any 
sense  the  work  of  the  Spirit  of  God — it  is  all  man's  work. 
And  in  support  of  these  views,  he  asked  with  an  air  of  seerw- 
ing  triumph,  how  **  a  man  could  be  bom  of  that  which  he 
received?"  alluding  to  the  doctrine  of  the  orthodox,  that 
they  v/ho  are  b<)rn  again  are  not  only  born  of  the  Spirit, 
but  receive  the  earnest  of  that  Spirit  in  their  hearts.  I: 
was  therefore  contended  that  all  this,  as  v.ell  as  hl^ 
notion  about  a  spiritual  atmosphere,  into  which  a  perse n 
"  born  of  water,'*  according  to  his  view  of  that  expres- 
sion, is  said  to  be  introduced,  was  as  far  beneath  the 
dignity  of  the  subject,  as  it  evidently  was  foreign  fi  om 
the  meaning  of  our  Saviour's  language.    The  analogies 

*  17  ^ 
\ 


190 


DEBATE  OX 


indeed  between  a  natural  and  new  or  spiritual  birth,  it 
was  furLQer  alleged,  are  indeed  forcible,  beautiful,  ap[iro- 
priate,  but  in  so  far  as  they  regard  the  latter,  or  new 
birth,  have  no  relation  to  the  body,  but  to  the  soul.  That 
the  new  birth,  according  to  the  evident  sense  of  the  scrip- 
tures, and  especially  of  the  language  of  our  Saviour  in  his 
conversation  wi  h  Nicodemus,  plainly  implied  the  com- 
mencement of  a  new  life, — a  spiritual  life, — a  life  of  which 
we  are  ail  by  nature  destitute,  "  That  which  is  born  of 
the  flesh  is  flesh,  and  that  which  is  born  of  the  Spirit  is 
spirit."  Therefore,  "  Marvel  not  that  I  said  unto  thee, 
ye  must  be  born  again."  As  though  the  Divine  teacher 
had  said,  *•  Seeing  it  is  so  that  all  this  fallen  race,  for 
w^hose  salvation  I  have  come  into  the  world,  are  born  of 
the  flesh,  and  are  nought  but  flesh,  or  of '  a  fleshly  mind;* 
and  seeing  that  '  to  be  carnally  minded  is  death,  but  to 
be  spiritually  minded  is  life  and  peace:'  therefore  mar- 
vel not  that  I  say  unto  you,  ye  must  be  born  again;  born 
of  the  Spirit,  without  which  you  must  remain  in  the  flesh, 
in  which  state  yoU  cannot  please  God, — in  which  state 
you  must  remain  under  the  power  of  this  carnal  mind, 
which  is  death,  and  destitute  of  that  spirituality,  or 
spiritual  life,  which  is  tlie  result  of  being  '  a  partaker  of 
the  divine  nature.'" 

And  this,  it  was  further  contended,  evidently  implied  a 
quickening  or  spiritual  vivification  of  the  soul,  such  as 
none  but  God  could  etiect.  Thus  v»  e  are  represented  by 
nature  as  lx?ing  "dead  in  trespasses  and  sins,"  (Eph. 

and  the  apostle,  (verses  4,5.6,)  addressing  such  as 
he  believed  to  be  saints,  declares  concerning  them,  in 
C'>mm:)n  with  himself,  "But  God  who  is  rich  in  mercy, 
vScc.  Even  when  we  were  dead  in  sins,  hath  quickened 
us  together  with  Chris';  (by  grace  ye  are  sa^  ed:)  and 
iiath  raised  us  up  tocrether,  and  made  us  sit  together  in 
i:eayenly  places  in  Christ  Jesus." 

The  same  thing  is  elsewhere  in  the  scriptures,  both  of 
the  Old  and  New  Testaments,  represented  under  the  idea 
of  a  creation, — a  veir  creation,  a  creation  to  holiness, 
to  good  works.    Thus  the  apostle  declares,  (Eph.  '2:10,) 


CAMPBELLISM. 


191 


•*  For  we  are  his  workmanship,  created  in  Christ  Jesus 
unto  good  works,"  6oC.  Again,  the  same  apostle,  {2  Lor> 
5:17,)  "  Therefore  if  any  man  be  in  Christ  Jesus,  he  is 
a  new  creature:  old  things  are  passed  away;  beliold  all 
tilings  are  become  new."  And  again,  in  his  epistle  to  iha 
Ephesians,  (4:22,24,)  he  exiiorts  ihem  to  "  put  oti^,  con- 
cerning the  former  conversation,  tlie  old  man,  which  is 
corrupt  according  to  the  deceitiul  lusts;  and  be  renewed, 
(adds  tlie  apostle,)  in  the  spirit  of  your  minds.  And 
that  ye  put  on  the  new  man,  which  after  God,  (or  ao- 
cording  to  his  image,)  is  created  in  righteousness  and 
U'ue  holiness." 

Thus  it  appears  that  this  new  birth  is  tlie  work  of  God, 
whereby  a  sinner  is  "  quickened"  created  (anew)  in 
Christ  Jesus.  So  that  he  becomes  "  a  new  creature;" 
*  old  things  having  passed  away,  ail  things  are  becomo 
new."  in  these,  as  well  as  in  other  respects,  there  is  a 
striking  analogy  between  a  natural  and  spiritual,  or  new 
birth.  As  the  change  produced  in  the  state  of  the  infant, 
so  no  less,  but  greater,  is  the  change  in  the  state  of  a  sin- 
ner that  is  born  again.  As  the  new  born  infont  imme- 
diately begins,  in  some  feeble  measure,  to  use  its  various 
senses,  and  to  discern  surrounding  objects,  so  the  person 
that  is  born  again,  immediately  begins  to  receive  ti>e 
tilings  of  the  Spirit  of  God,  which  once  were  foolishness 
in  his  view,  because  they  are  now,  at  least  in  some  faint 
degree,  spiritually  discerned."  As  the  feelings,  desires 
and  mode  of  subsistence  of  the  new  born  are  entirely 
new,  so  the  person  that  is  born  again,  becomes  the  sub- 
ject of  feelings,  desires  and  enjoyments,  entirely  new. 
He  is,  moreover,  expressly  styled  a  babe  in  Christ;  and 
tJie  apostle  Peter  exhorted  such  as  were  young  in  tliQ 
divine  life,  "  as  new  born  babes,"  to  "  desire  the  sincere 
milk  of  the  w^ord,"  that  they  might  "  grow^  thereby.^ 

Now  that  this  great  change  is  eftected  through  ih.Q 
agency  or  special  operation  of  the  Holy  Sj^irit,  is  equally 
evident  from  the  word  of  God.  The  \vork  is  indeed  as- 
cribed to  each  of  the  persons  in  the  Godhead,  but  the 
person  born  again,  is  emphatically  said  to  be  "  born  of 


192 


DEBATE  ON 


the  Spirit."  Thus  our  Lord  declares,  (John  5:21,)  "  For 
as  the  Father  raiseth  up  the  dead  and  quickeneth  Ihefn; 
even  so  the  Son  quickenc-h  whom  he  will."  That  this 
has  reference,  as  well  to  the  quickening  of  such  as  be 
dead  in  trespasses  and  sins,  as  to  the  quickening  of  im 
dead  in  the  last  dciy,  is  evident  from  what  follows.  Jesus 
further  declares,  (verse  25,)  "  Verily,  I  say  unto  you  \\m 
hour  is  coming  and  now  is,  when  the  dead  shall  hear  the 
voice  of  the  Son  of  God,  and  they  that  hear,  shall  live.** 
This  evidently  alludes  to  the  quickening  and  spiritual  re- 
surrection or  new  birth,  of  such  as  be  dead  in  sin ;  for 
it  is  further  declared,  (verse 28,29,)  "Marvel  not  at  this:" 
as  though  the  Savior  had  said,  as  I  declared  to  Nico- 
demus,  so  now  say  J  unto  you,  marvel  not  at  this:  be  not 
astonished  at  this  declaration  of  my  purpose  to  quicken 
such  as  are  spiritually  dead,  "  For,  (he  added,)  the  hour 
is  coming,  in  the  which  all  that  are  in  the  graves  shall 
hear  his  voice,  and  shall  come  forth:  they  that  have  done 
good,  unto  the  resurrection  of  hfe;  and  they  that  have 
done  evil,  unto  the  resurrection  of  damnation."  Although 
therefore  such  as  are  born  again,  are  said  to  be  quicken- 
ed by  God  together  with  Christ,  and  although  Jesus  de- 
clares that  the  Son  quickeneth  whom  he  will,  he  never- 
theless expressly  informs  us,  (John  6:63,)  "  It  is  ti»€ 
Spirit  that  quickeneth."  Nor  can  there  be  any  doubt 
that  it  is  for  this  special  purpose,  as  w^ell  as  for  that  sanc- 
tification  of  the  Spirit,  w^iereby,  together  with  the  belief 
of  the  truth,  we  are  said  to  be  saved,  that  we  are  so 
particularly  and  kindly  encouraged  by  the  Saviour  lo 
pray  for  the  Holy  Spirit.  If  ye  being  evil  know  how 
to  give  good  gifts  unto  yoin-  children,  how^  much  more 
shall  your  Father  who  is  in  neaven  give  good  things  to 
them  that  ask  him?" 

As  to  the  particular  manner  or  mode  of  the  o^-eration 
of  the  Spirit,  in  the  production  of  this  great  change  or 
new  creation,  our  Saviour,  as  we  have  already  seen, 
clearly  intimates  by  the  illustration  frorn  the  blowing  of 
the  wind,  that  we  cannot  comprehend  it.  We  kiK»w, 
however,  that  the  wind  is  a  powerful  agent,  that  it  son^ 


CAMPBELLISM. 


193 


times  produces  astonishing  effects,  although  it  is  at  the 
same  time  invisible  to  us.  So  also  we  know  from  the 
word  of  truth,  that  this  work  of  the  Spirit  is  the  effect  of 
the  mighty  power  of  God.  Eph.  1:17 — 20.  The  word  of 
God  is  expressly  called  "  the  sword  of  the  Spirit."  Now 
we  know  that  a  sword,  whatever  may  be  its  materials, 
or  however  skilfully  it  may  be  constructed,  can  do  no 
execution  until  it  be  wielded  by  a  powerful  and  dexterous 
arm:  thus  it  is  with  the  word  of  God.  Yet  it  is  said  to 
be  quick  and  powerful,  sharper  than  any  two  edged 
sword,  piercing  even  to  the  dividing  asunder  of  soul  and 
spirit,  and  of  the  joints  and  marrow,  and  is  a  discerner  of 
tlie  thoughts  and  intents  of  the  heart."  I  am  well  aware 
tliat  the  Campbellitish  doctrine  teaches  that  the  word  of 
God  has  in  itself  this  inherent  power.  But  the  whole 
tenor  of  the  scriptures,  as  well  as  daily  observation, 
teaches  us  it  is  only  in  consequence  of  the  agency  or  pow- 
er of  the  Spirit,  when  he  is  pleased  to  take  it  into  his 
own  nand,  as  his  own  sword  wliereby  lie  pierces  the 
enemies  of  the  King  of  Zion.  Thus  the  apostle  declares 
to  the  Thessalonians,  (1  Thess.  1:5,)  '*  Our  gospel  came 
not  to  you  in  word  only,  but  also  in  power  and  in  the 
Holy  Ghost,  and  in  much  assurance,"  (fee. 

As  we  can,  moreover,  perceive  the  effects  of  the  wind, 
so  also  the  effects  of  this  work  of  the  Spirit  may  be  known. 
The  first  of  which  is  to  convict  the  sinner  of  his  guilt  and 
rebellion  against  God,  and  to  bring  him  to  the  feet  of  the 
8aviour  with  cries  for  mercy  and  salvation.  Thus  our 
Lord  declared  that  when  the  Spirit  of  truth  should  come, 
he  would  "  reprove  [or  convince]  the  world  of  sin  and  of 
righteousness  and  of  judgment." 

The  manner  of  this  divine  operation,  as  well  as  its 
blessed  effects  upon  the  mind,  the  heart,  or  soul  of  man, 
are,  moreover,  in  some  measure  beautifully  indicated  by 
tiie  figurative  language  of  the  Baptist,  which  Mr,  Cl 
strives  to  wrest  from  its  plain  meaning,  as  well  as  that  of 
our  Lord,  upon  which,  as  one  of  his  chief  pillars,  he  at- 
tempts to  erect  his  fabric  of  salvation  by  water.  Accord- 
ing to  the  language  of  John,  they  who  are  baptized  witl^ 


D£BAT£ 


the  Holy  Ghost  are  said  to  be  baptized  also  with  fire* 

*  Is  fire  (says  that  excellent  commentator  Henry)  enlight- 
ening? So  the  Spirit  is  a  Spirit  of  illumination.  Is  it 
warming?  And  do  not  their  hearts  burn  within  them?  Is 
it  consuming?  And  does  not  the  Spirit  of  Judgment,  as  a 
Spirit  of  burning,  consume  the  dross  of  their  corruptions? 
Does  fire  make  all  it  seizes  like  itself?  And  does  it  move 
upwards?  So  does  the  Spirit  make  the  soul  holy  like  it- 
self, and  its  tendency  is  heavenward."  And  it  might  yet 
further  be  asked,  has  fire  the  power  not  only  to  melt  ice 
but  even  the  hardest  metals?  So  the  Spirit  can  cause  the 
most  icy,  stony,  flinty  heart  to  melt  into  the  deepest  con- 
trition, so  thai  the  sinner,  lately  obdurate  and  unfeeling,  ia 
made  to  pour  it  out  like  water,  not  only  in  humble  confes- 
sion, but  in  prayer  and  in  praise;  whilst  his  soul,  no  longer 
cleaving  to  the  dust,  ascends  like  the  burning  flame  on 
high,  and  his  aflections  are  elevated  and  set  on  things 
above,  where  Jesus  sitteth  at  the  right  hand  of  God. 

Again, — according  to  the  declaration  of  Jesus,  to*' be 
born  again,^'  is  to-be     horn  of  mater,  and  of  the  Spirit," 

that  is,  (according  to  the  same  commentator,)  of  the  Spi- 
rit working  like  water.  First,  that  which  is  primarily  in- 
tended here,  is  to  show  that  the  Spirit  in  sanctifying  a 
soul,  first  cleanses  and  purifies  it  as  water;  takes  away 
its  filth,  by  which  it  was  unfit  for  the  kingdom  of  Goi 
It  is  the  washing  of  regeneration.  Titus  3:5.  Secondly,  the 
Spirit  cools  and  refreshes  the  soul,  as  water  doth  the 
hunted  hart  and  the  weary  traveller."  Whether  this  be 
not  the  true  exposition  of  the  text,  let  the  candid  reader 
judge,  after  having  well  considered  in  connection  there- 
with, Ezek.  36:25,  which  has  already  been  noticed,  and 
1  Cor.  6:11,  which  will  be  more  particularly  examined 
in  the  sequel. 

In  reply  to  the  observations  of  Mr.  C.  upon  the  term 

*  begotten,''  as  used  in  the  epistles  of  Peter  and  John,  and 
the  arguments  which  he  attempted  to  derive  from  that 
source  to  support  his  doctrine,  it  was  shown  that  the  dis- 
tinction which  he  pretended  to  draw  between  a  person 
begotten  of  God,  and  one  born  of  God  or  born  again,  if 


CAMPBELLISM. 


it  existed  at  all,  was  in  fact  so  slight  that  by  conceding, 
as  he  had  gratuitously  done,  that  a  person  may  be  begot^ 
ten  of  God,  without  immersion  or  baptism,  he  had,  it  was 
conceived,  yielded  the  point  in  dispute.  To  be  begotten 
of  God,  and  to  be  born  of  God  or  born  again,  was  and 
still  is  asserted  to  be  substantially  the  same  thing.  The 
distinction,  it  is  supposed,  would  never  have  been  sug- 
gested to  the  mind  of  Mr.  C.  had  he  not  been  at  a  loss  to 
find  support  for  his  tottering  system,  and  had  he  not  been 
led,  through  a  want  of  just  ideas  of  the  new  birth,  to 
seek  for  the  analogies  between  this  and  a  natural  birt^i, 
in  those  circumstances  v/hich  have  a  peculiar  reference 
to  the  body  as  distinct  from  the  soul.  Although,  there- 
fore, "  a  child  is  begotten  and  made  alive  before  it  is 
born,"  as  he  states  in  his  narrative,  it  is  equally  unscri}>- 
tural  and  absurd  to  suppose  that  a  man  may  be  begotten 
of  God,  and  made  spiritually  alive  unto  God,  before  fio 
is  born  of  God,  and  which  last  he  cannot  be  until  he  be 
immersed.  On  the  contrary,  it  is  conceived,  the  scrip- 
tures teach  us  to  believe  that  the  person  who  is  begotten 
of  God,  is  born  again;  or,  which  is  the  same  thing,  the 
person  that  is  quickened  from  a  state  of  death  in  tre^ 
passes  and  sins,  and  is  thus  made  spiritually  alive,  is  bom 
of  the  Spirit;  and  the  person  thus  begotten  of  God  or 
born  of  the  Spirit,  is,  it  is  apprehended,  in  the  true  mean- 
ing of  the  phrase,  "  horn  of  water"  although  he  may  not, 
as  yet,  be  baptized,  or  although  he  should  be  prevented, 
either  by  accident,  or  mistake  with  regard  to  his  duty  ia 
this  particular,  from  ever  being  baptized. 

In  support  of  what  is  here  alleged,  besides  what  has 
already  been  observed,  the  reader  is  first  referred  to  1 
Pe'^er  1:3 — 5,  as  one  of  the  passages  especially  relied 
upon  in  the  debate.  "  Blessed  be  the  God  and  Father  of 
our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  6z:c.,  who,  &c.,  hath  begotten  us 
again  unto  a  lively  hope,  &c.  To  an  inheritance  incor- 
ruptible," &c.  Here  the  apostle  speaks  of  himself  in 
common  with  other  believers  to  whom  he  addressed  his 
epistle,  as  having  been  by  God,  begotten  again,  &c.,  &c. 
Now  the  question  occurs,  were  none  of  these  born  of 


1D6 


DEBATE  05 


God  or  born  atrain?  If  not,  it  is  a  thin^  vcrv  iinniaterial 
whether  a  sinner  that  is  begotten  of  God  be  thus  born  or 
not.  They  were  begotten  again  to  a  Hvely  YiO\>e — to  an 
incorruptible  inheritance — and  were  to  be  kept  by  tije 
power  of  God  through  faith  unto  salvation.  And  what 
more  could  have  been  obtained  by  the  supjxjsed  addition- 
al birth  of  the  Bishop?  But  this  is  not  all.  Whilst  ii  is 
admitted  that  the  original  words  translated  in  the  passa^;Q 
(1  Peter  1:3)  last  cited,  "  begoitev^''  and  that  in  John  3:.3, 
translated  "  born,''^  are  not  exactly  the  same,  yet  they 
are,  and  especially  when  they  relate  to  "  spiritual  things,'* 
of  such  a  kindred  meaning  that  the  translators  of  our 
standard  version,  wlio  consisted  of  a  large  number  of 
men  equally  as  learned,  and  equally  as  yjious  too,  as  tl^io 
Bishop,  translated  them  both  begotten  and  born.  Thus  hi 
1  Peter  1:3,  the  word  translated  begotten,  is  in  composition 
with  another  sii^nifying  again,  and  therefore  it  is  transla- 
ted, "  begotten  again."  In  verse  23,  the  same  word  com- 
pounded as  before  stated,  is  translated,  "  Being  bom 
again."  Thus,  also,  in  1  John  5:1,  the  same  word  is  thrico 
used  uncompounded,  and  is  translated  both  born  and  be- 
gotten: "  Whosoever  believeth  that  Jesus  is  the  Christ,  is 
born  of  God:  and  every  one  that  loveth  him  that  hegaU 
loveth  him  also  that  is  begotten  of  him."  Tlius  we  sec 
what  were  the  views  of  our  learned  and  able  translators 
in  relation  to  this  subject;  and  let  the  reader  judge  whic- 
ther  more  reliance  ought  to  be  placed  upon  the  hy[)ercrit- 
icisms  of  the  Bishop,  than  upon  their  united  wisdom  and 
knowledge.  And  let  him  also  further  judge,  whether  a 
system  built  upon  such  hair-breadth  distinctions  be  wo i  thy 
of  his  confidence  or  regard. 

But  the  word  (in  1  Pet.l:3)  translated  ''begotten  tigain" 
suggests  another  thought,  well  worthy  of  attention-  Mr. 
C.  contends  that  there  is  a  distinction  between  being  be- 
gotten of  God  and  born  of  God,  or  born  again,  corres- 
ponding to  that  which  exists  in  nature,  between  the 
begetting  and  birth  of  a  child.  But  h';re  the  apostle 
rpeaks  of  those  who  were  not  only  "  b>'goUen"  of  Go^J, 
but  "  begotten  again  to  a  lively  hope,"  &c.    Now  let  Mr. 


CAMPBELLISM. 


19T 


C.show  the  analogy,  if  any  exist,  between  this  and  the 
natural  be^jeuing  of  a  child.  It  is  indeed  once  begotten 
of  its  natural  father,  but  in  no  sense  can  it  be  said  to  he 
begotten  again.  Man,  in  his  original  state,  was  begotten 
of  G«xl,  or  created  by  him  in  his  own  image,  and  to  a 
lively  and  glorious  hope,  but  he  lost  all  by  his  defection 
and  apostacy  from  God,  so  that  in  his  natm-al  state  and 
before  he  returns  to  and  is  born  of  God,  he  is  said  to  have 
"  no  hope,  and  to  be  without  God  in  the  world."  Hence 
the  sinner  that  is  quickened  from  a  state  of  death  in  siiks, 
and  restored  to  the  image  and  favor  of  God,  obtains  the 
lorgiveness  of  his  sins,  and  a  lot  among  those  who  are 
?"anctified  by  the  faith  that  is  in  Jesus,  rnay  well  be  said 
to  have  been  of  God  "begotten  again  to  a  lively  hope/'  <fcc. 

Thus  we  see  that  in  the  passage  last  cited,  the  supposed 
analogy  of  Mr.  C.  utterly  fails  him,  and  consequently  the 
distinction,  at  least  in  this  case,  between  being  "  begotten 
again  (of  God)  to  a  lively  hope,"  &:c.,  and  being  "  born 
again,"  disappears.  Indeed  the  original  word,  com- 
pounded as  it  is  in  this  passage,  might  with  propriety  be 
translated  "  regenerated'^  which^  as  has  been  seen,  was 
in  the  debate  conceded,  and  which  in  the  sequel  will  be 
shown  to  be  equivalent  to.  or  the  same  with  being  "  born 
again."  For  this  rendering  of  the  word  translated  be- 
^oiten  again,'"  we  have  the  authority  of  Mr.  C.  himself, 
:n  whose  version  we  find  the  participle  of  the  same  verb, 
which  is  translated  in  our  version,  "  being  born  again." 
rendered kcivlng  been  regenerated.'-  Hence,  after  all, 
the  argument  attempted  to  be  drawn  by  Mr.  C.,  in  sup- 
port of  his  doctrine,  from  the  distinction  taken  by  him 
between  "  h^.gottsn  again"  and  "  bom  again  J'  seems  to 
resolve  itself  into  the  question,  what  is  the  true  meaning 
of  Titus  3:5?  This  will  be  duly  considered  in  the  sequ?  L 
It  is  nevertheless  proper  to  remark  yet  further  upon  this 
part  of  the  subject,  that  it  was  contended  by  Mr.  C,  in 
support  of  the  above  distinction,  as  well  as  with  a  view 
to  sustain  the  position,  that  God  never  owns  a  sinner  at. 
a  son  or  daughter  "  of  the  Lord  Almighty,"  until  he  ci 
she  be  ifi^imersed;  that  he  did  not  own  or  acknowledge 


10^ 


DEBATE  0!r 


Jesus  Christ  to  be  his  Son,  until  he  was  baptized  of  Jolm, 
when  }.e  bore  testimony  Irom  heaven,  saying,  "  This  is 
my  beloved  Son  in  whom  I  am  well  plea'sed."  This  is 
indeed  a  bold  assertion,  and  well  calculated  to  give,  in 
the  view  of  many,  an  air  of  plausibility  to  the  Bishop's 
doctrine,  especially  as  Jesus  is  expressly  styled,  the 
tirst  begot len,"  as  well  as  "  the  only  begotten"  Son  of 
(iod.  But  is  this  assertion  true?  So  far  from  it,  that  it 
IS  as  unfounded  as  it  is  bold.  It  is  indeed  true,  that  (he 
Kternal  Father  was  }ileased  to  bear  testimony  from 
lieaven,  and  that  in  an  audible  voice,  when  Jesus  was 
ba])tize  1,  and  about  to  enter  u}H)n  the  work  which  had 
been  given  him  to  do,  that  h.e  was  his  beloved  Son;  but 
tho  question  is,  did  he  never  before  own  him  as  his  Son; 
It  doubtless  comports  with  the  views  and  doctrines  of 
Mr.  C,  to  make  the  Sonship  of  Christ  coeval,  and  o?i/u 
(X>eval,  with  his  baptism.  Thereby  an  argument  woiild 
be  furnished  against  the  doctrine  of  the  supreme  and 
absolute  divinity  of  the  Son  of  God,  which  may  be  said 
to  be  the  Rock  on  which  God  has  built  his  church.  But 
the  question  is,  not  what  does  the  Bishop  declare,  but 
what  doth  the  scriptures  teach  in  i*elation  to  this  point? 

It  is  not  my  intention  to  discuss  this  question  at  length, 
it  seems  to  be  sufficiently  answered,  at  least  for  our  pre- 
sent purpose,  in  the  2d  Psalm.  There  we  learn  from  the 
publication  of  the  decree  of  Jehovah,  that  he  was  solemn- 
ly owned  as  the  Son  of  God,  in  the  day  that  he  was 
begotten  of  the  Father.  "  Tliou  art  my  Son:  this  day 
have  T  begotten  thee."  Whether  "  this  daif  spoken  of, 
refers  to  any  period  in  time,  or  whether  the  Son  was  be- 
gotten from  all  eternity,  I  do  not  now  stop  to  inquire. 
The  question  of  the  eternal  generation  of  the  Son  of 
God,  is  not  the  issue  which  T  have  joined  with  the  Bishop 
unon  this  subject,  but  whether  he  was  ever  owned  or 
aclmowiedged  by  God  as  his  Son,  until  he  was  baptized? 
That  he  was  not  only  thus  owned,  but  established  in  his 
kinglv  authority  upon  God's  holy  hill  of  Zion,  long  before 
his  advent  into  the  world,  it  it  is  conceived,  is  fully  esta- 
blished by  Uiis  Psalm,  wliich  is  not  merely  a  prophetic 


CAMPBELLISH. 


declaration  of  a  Saviour  to  come,  but  a  eolemn  reropM- 
tion  of  him  as  a  king,  who  was  justly  entitled  to  the  ser- 
vice, and  homage,  and  supreme  aftection  of  all  orders  uf 
men,  and  who  was  invested  with  full  authority  and  urn- 
pie  power  to  destroy  all  such  as  should  obstinately  per- 
sist in  refusing  to  submit  to  his  rightful  authority,  (verse 
S — 12.)  That  this  Psalm  has  a  direct  reference  to  tlie 
Saviour,  it  is  presumed  will  not  be  denied,  especially  as 
w^e  have  clear  evidence  of  that  fact,  in  the  prayer  offered 
by  his  disciples,  (Acts  4,)  after  his  ascension  to  the  right 
hand  of  God  It  may  be  proper  further  to  observe,  that 
we  find  this  same  Psalm  referred  to,  and  the  same  ctecret 
of  God  repeated,  in  the  1st  chapter  of  Hebrews;  and  it  i? 
further  declared,  (verse  6,)  "  When  he  bringeth  in  the 
first  begotten  (Son)  into  the  world,  lie  saith,  and  let  all 
the  angels  of  God  worship  him."  Does  this  furnish  no 
additional  evidence  that  the  Saviour  was  owned  of  God 
as  his  Son,  before  his  baptism?  I  shall  only  further  add. 
that  the  annunciation  of  his  birth  to  the  shepherds,  by 
those  heavenly  messengers  who  were  req?iired  to  wot 
ship  him  upon  his  entrance  into  the  world,  would  furnish 
evidence  sufficient,  were  it  necessary,  to  overturn  this 
poshion  of  the  Bishop,  which  it  is  presumed  will  now 
clearly  appear  to  be,  like  many  other  of  his  positions.  <: 
mere  figment  of  his  imagination,  devised  I'br  the  spectai 
purpose  of  supporting  his  system. 

It  was  further  alleged  in  the  discussion,  that  the  conse- 
quences of  the  doctrine  of  Mr.  C.,  as  stated  and  contended 
for  by  himself,  when  compared  with  the  clear  declara- 
tions of  God's  word,  proved  that  doctrine  to  be  fahe. 
Thus,  as  a  consequence  of  his  doctrine,  it  was  conteriCe*i 
by  him  that  until  a  man  be  immersed  he  cannot  be  jug  ri- 
fted, or  obtain  the  forgiveness  of  his  sins,  but,  even  n'h 
though  begotten  of  God,  (and  consequently  according  to 
the  language  of  the  Ap  )stle  Peter,  to  a  lively  hope — to  an 
inheritance  incorruptible,  &c.)  he  remains  in  a  state  of 
condemnation.  In  opposition  to  the  false  view  of  tiie 
way  of  salvation,  it  was  not  only  observed  that  we  art 
clearly  taught  in  the  scriptures,  that  we  are  justified  by 


200 


DEBATE  ON 


faith,  and  not  by  any  one  supposed  outward  act  of  faiih, 
(as  Mr.  C.  makes  immersiony  whereby  alone  he  holds  a 
sinner  can  be  justified,  to  be,  and  which  in  efl'ect  is  no- 
thing less  than  justification  by  w  orks,)  but  it  w  as  contended 
that  ihe  meritorious  cause,  as  well  as  the  condition  of 
forgiveness  of  sins,  has  ever  been  the  same  in  all  ages 
and  under  all  dispensations  of  the  covenant  of  God.  That 
90  far  as  we  can  view  the  subject,  it  could  not  indeed  be  other- 
wise, without  casting  a  reproach  upon  the  moral  govern- 
menl  of  God.    That  the  meritorious  cause,  is,  and  ever 
has  been,  the  mediation  or  blood-shedding  of  the  Son  of 
God,  who  is  styled  the  Lamb  slain  from  the  foundation 
of  tire  world.    The  only  condition  is,  that  stale  of  heart,, 
that  broken  and  contrite  spirit,  which  leads  a  sinner,  with 
true,  godly  sorrow,  and  an  humbio  apprehension  of  tlie 
mercy  of  God  through  the  mediation  of  the  Saviour,  tocoi  - 
fcss  and  turn  away  from  all  his  iniquity,  with  a  full  purpose 
■o  live  soberly,  righteously,  and  godly  in  this  evil  world, 
during  the  rest  of  his  life.    The  word  of  God  clearly 
leaches  us,  that  the  per?(jn,  whatever  may  have  been 
the  nature  and  number  of  his  ofiences,  wlio,  with  this 
disposition  and  purpose  of  heart,  asks  for  pardon,  invaria- 
hly  receives  the  forgiveness  of  his  sins,  and  a  lot  among 
such  as  are  sanctified  by  the  faith  that  is  in  .Tesus.  Thus 
It  is  declared:  (1  John  1.-9,)  "  If  we  confess  our  sins,  he 
(God)  is  faithful  and  just  to  forgive  us  our  sins,  and  to 
cleanse  us  from  all  unrighteousness."    And  (ver.  7.)  it  is 
further  declared,  that  "  the  blood  of  Jesus  Christ  his  Son 
cleanseth  us  from  all  sin."    Here  we  find  no  requirement 
(such  as  Mr.  C.  interposes)  of  the  literal  intervention  of 
water  in  this  great  matter  of  pardon  and  consequent 
cleansing  from  all  sin,  nor  any  allusion  to  baptism  or 
immersion  as  a  condition  precedent,  or  the  only  means  of 
obtaining  those  great  blessings.    Other  passages,  and  not 
a  few,  might  be  citetl  in  support  of  this  position,  which,  if  it 
be  true,  subverts  the  whole  system  of  the  Bishop:  but  it 
is  not  necessary.    Let  it  be  observed,  that  it  was  further 
contended,  that  if  immersion  or  baptism  be  necessary  to 
the  obtaining  of  pardon,  there  could,  upon  his  ownprinci- 


CAMPBELLI^Mo 


201 


|)les,  have  been  no  forgiveness  under  t!ie  Jewish  and 
former  dispensations  of  God's  mercy,  as  no  such  ordi- 
nance or  institui  ion  then  existed;  whereas  we  are  assured 
the  contrary  is  tiie  fact.  Thus  in  the  case  of  David, 
when  he  had  so  greatly  sinned  in  the  matter  of  Uricii. 
No  sooner  was  he  brought,  through  the  instrumentality  of 
Nathan,  humbly  to  confess  his  sin,  than  that  servant  of 
God  assured  him  that  it  was  put  away.  Accordingly 
we  hear  the  penifent  himself  declare,  (Psal.  32:5,)  T 
acknov/Iedgcd  my  sin  unto  thee,  and  mine  iniquity  have 
I  not  hid.  I  said  I  will  confess  my  transgressions  unto 
the  Lord;  and  thou  forgavest  the  iniquity  of  my  s  n." 
if  then  there  is  no  forgi  veness  of  sins,  at  least  in  this  life, 
wit^hout  immersion,  as  Mr,  C.  contends,  in  vain  did  the 
Old  Testament  saints  make  their  humble  confession,  in 
vain  did  they  so  earnestly  plead  with  God  for  pardcn: 
and  the  record  of  tho  blotting  out  of  their  sins  as  a  clf  ud 
and  a  thick  cloud,  is  not  true. 

It  was  ftu'ther  observed,  that  the  force  of  the  argurnciit 
which  the  Bishop  attempted  from  the  passage  (Rev. 
wherein  Jesus  Christ  is  described  as  "  the  jfirst-])egotteri 
of  the  dead,"  could  not  be  perceived.  It  is  indeed  ad- 
mitted, that  the  original  w^ord  here  rendered  f\'rsl-lcg^ci- 
ien"  in  our  translation,  means  also  First-born,  and  is  tht^? 
translated  in  our  version  in  the  epistle  to  the  Colossians, 
(1:15,)  where  our  Lord  is  called  "  the  First-born  (or  as 
it  is  conceived  ir  v/ould  in  this  instance  have  been  letter 
rendered,  the  First-begotten)  of  evejij  axature"  or  of 
the  whole  creation,  "  because  he  was  (eternally)  begotrefi 
to  be  Heir  and  Lord  of  all  things,  or  over  all  persons, 
to  have  the  pre-eminence,  and  because  all  things  w^ere 
created  /or  him  as  well  as  by  him."  So  also  he  is  called 
the  First-begotten  (or  the  First-hmii)  of  the  dead,"  in 
conse  quence  of  his  being  the  first  that  rose  from  the  dead, 
no  more  to  die.  Hence"  says  the  apostle:  "  Now  is  Thrij^t 
risen  from  the  d^?.d,  and  become  the  first  fruits  of  them 
that  slept."  And  hence  He  declares  himself  to  be,  (Rev. 
1:1S,)  "  He  that  liveth  and  was  dead;  and  behold,  I  arn 
alive  forever  more,  Amen:  and  have  the  keys  of  heli  aiui 

*18 


202 


DEBATE  0!f 


of  death."  Stili  it  was  not,  nor  is  I't  yet  perceived  how 
tliis  phrase,  or  description  of  a  risen  Saviour,  aflbrds 
any  support  to  the  system  of  Mr  C,  more  than  the  pas- 
sage, (Heh.  1:6,)  wherein  it  is  said  concerning  the  Mes- 
siah, "  Wiien  he  bringeth  in  the  Firsi-hegoUen  (or  first- 
born) into  the  world,  he  saith,  let  all  the  angels  of  G(xi 
worship  him." 

With  regard  to  the  human  authority*  cited  by  Mr.  C, 

♦  T?ie  following  statements.of  Mr.  Campbell  are  here  mserted  by  ihe 
Editor  of  this  book,  that  the  reader  may  see  how  Ktlle  dependence  can 
be  placed  on  tiie  declarationa  of  a  rnan,  who  at  one  time  entirely  rt-pu- 
diatPH  the  opinions  of  the  ancient  fathers,  afid  at  another,  'brintrs 
them  forward  with  confidence — who  at  one  time  sta*es  a  certain  doc- 
trine Wits  not  common  among  a  class  of  men,  and  then,  again,  repre- 
sents all  of  them  aa  harmonioua  about  the  same  thing.  His  statements 
maj  be  presented  very  properly  as 

CAnrBEix  t>er«u«  CaSpbtll, 

"  Many  of  those  fathers  of  whom  "AD  the  apostolical  fatliera,  aii 
you  have  heard,  are  produced  by  they  are  called;  all  the  pupils  of  the 
tJie  Catholic?!,  in  proof  of  the  doc-  apostles;  and  alt  the  ecclefiasticuJ 
Xrin«  of  purs^atory,  and  as  evidences  writers  of  note,  of  the  first  four 
of  Iho  antiquity  of  praying  to  saints  Christian  centuries,  whose  writings 
and  angels — they  were  all  fufl  of !  hare  come  down  to  us;  allude  to^ 
whimsie?.  Irenaeus,  Justin,  Ter-;  and  speak  of.  Christian  immersion. 
tuHian,Origen,  Jerorno,  Angastine,  i  as  the  regeneration  and  reraipsion 


held  and  taught  wild  and  extrava- 
gant opinions.  Some  of  theee  con- 
tended that  Paul's  epistle  to  Seneca, 
and  Seneca's  epietle  to  Paul,  were 
genuine.  Some  of  them  cuoled  the 
Shepherd  of  Hern:  as,  a?  a  part  ofholy 
6cci;:  ture.  Some  ot  them  taught,  &,c^ 
&.C.,  euricular  con'esf-ion,  and  the 
fundamental  dogmas  of  Popery.** 
Soe  Campbell's  debate  with  M'Ca'Ua, 
p.  36.5  and  3G8. 

Again,  that  the  ancients  some- 
Hmea  used  the  word  regenerate  for 


of  sins,  spoken  of  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment."  Millennial  Harbinger,  extra, 
on  remission  of  sins,  &.C.  Prop<»*i 
tion  11,  p.  42, 


All  the  apostolical  father*, — 
all  Lhe  pupils  of  the  apostles;  and 


hap'Jro,  I  admit:  but  this  was /cr  .  the  ecclesiastical  writers  of  note, 
ft>?n  fcrtrjo-  conimoa  or  general  J"  See;  ^fec.  &c.,  &c.,  allude  to,  cind  speak 
the  debate,  p.  367.  of  Cliristian  immersion,  as  tiie  re- 

generation and  remission  of  sins 
spoken  of  in  the  New  I'eetaHxenL" 
See  as  above. 

7*>ie  testimony  of  the  ancieni  fathers  of  the  first  four  o?  frr» 
oentoriea  of  the  Christian  church  ia,  generally,  to  be  accrodited  wLea 


CAMPBELLISM, 


203 


and  of  which  he  affects  to  make  a  great  display  in  his 
Extra,  No.  1,  while  at  the  same  time  proftssing  to  place 
no  reliance  upon  it,  it  was  admitted  that  most  evange- 
lical churches,  as  well  as  writers,  admitted  there  is  a 
probabiliii/,  that  both  in  John  3:5,  and  Titus  3:5,  there  is 
an  allusion  to  baptism,  as  the  visible  sign  of  that  spiritual 
grace  which  is  communicated  by  the  Holy  Spirit  in  the 
work  of  regeneration,  which  they  contend  can  be  per- 
formed or  accompHshed  by  him  alone;  but  it  was,  as  it 
stilt  is,  contended,  that  it  was  not  until  darkness  began  to 
overspread  the  church,  that  baptism  began  to  be  held 
equivalent  to  regeneration,  and  not  until  popish  darkness 
and  superstition  had  begun  to  brood  over  the  Christian 
world,  that  baptism  was  viewed  essential  to  salvation; 
and  further,  that  in  every  part  and  portion  of  the  world, 
this  doctrine  was  more  or  less  exploded,  in  proportion  to 
the  degree  in  which  the  genuine  principles  and  light  of 
the  Rdbrmation,  together  with  true  godliness,  had  pre- 
vailed. Hence  it  was  contended,  that  the  pretended 
ancient  gospel  of  Mr.  C.  was  nothing  more  than  a  new- 
fangled system  of  popish  delusion  and  superstition,  (in 
one  sense,  ancient  or  old  enough,)  which,  like  its  proto- 
type, was  calculated  to  lead  men  to  rest  in  mere  outw^ard 
ceremonies,  while  destitute  of  that  "  new  heart  and  new 
spirit,"  without  which  they  must  die  forever. 

It  was  further  admitted,  that  the  passages  above  cited 
are  referred  to  by  the  persons  who  were  appointed  to 
superintend  the  publication  of  our  Confession  of  Faith, 
a?  authorities,  in  their  estimation,  of  the  nature  and  do- 
sign  of  the  ordinance  of  baptism,  as  held  by  the  Presby- 
terian church,  but  that  those  passages  form  a  part  of  the 
Confession  itself,  is  denied.  The  object  of  such  a  Con- 
fession is  not  to  select  any  portions  of  the  word  of  God. 

it  relates  to  occurrences  or  the  practices  of  the  church  in  those  ages;'  but 
their  own  opinions,  and  especially  after  the  first  and  second  centuriei^ 
were  sometimes  srrievoush'  erroneous.  Some  of  these  Fathers*  did,  in 
the  lanjTunge  of  Mr.  Campbell,  espouse  some  of  the  "  doofmas  of  Popery" 
in  embryo;  but  it  was  left  for  darker  atres  to  bring-  them  to  perfection, 
and  for, the  Restorer  of  the  "  ancient  gospel"  to  hold  that  regen^raiion 
vad  immersion  are  the  same  thing. 


204 


DEBATE  ON 


as  worthy  of  belief,  for  every  part  is  held  to  be  "  worthy 
of  all  acceptation;"  but  hoiie^^tly  and  candidly  to  give  a 
summary  of  such  doctrines,  as  we  conscientiously  r.e- 
lieve  to  be  taught  in  that  re\elation  from  heaven,  with 
which  we  are  so  highly  favored.  The  assertion,  there- 
fore, of  Mr.  C,  that  1  o}jposed  my  own  creed,  was  iiKe 
many  more  of  his  assertions,  without  foundation. 

But  if  it  were,  and  ever  had  been,  admitted  by  all  the 
Christian  world,  that  in  John  y:5,  and  Titus  3.5,  there 
was  a  direct  allusion  to  baptism,  still  the  inquiry  woidd 
arise,  can  this  certainly  be  shown  to  be  the  case  from 
the  scriptures  theinseUes?  And  what  is  still  more,  can 
it  thus  be  shown  that  imrnersimi  was  intended,  and  it  so, 
that  it  is  identical  with  being  "  born  again,"  or  "born  of 
the  wSpirit?"  The  question,  therefore,  would  still  remain 
the  same.  And  here,  let  it  l>e  carefully  remarked,  that 
the  gross  absurdity,  as  well  as  unscriptural  character  <»f 
the  position,  that  "to  be  horn  again,  and  iinmersiif,  are 
the  same  thing,"  are  so  evident,  especially  when  we  con- 
sider that  the  former,  according  to  the  declaration  of 
Christ  hitnself,  implies  not  only  a  being  "  born  of  water," 
(whatever  that  expression  may  mean,)  but  also  "  of  the 
Spirit,"  that  Mr.  C,  himself,  in  his  narrative,  endeavors 
to  escape  from  it,  as  will  be  seen  and  more  pariicularly 
noticed  in  the  sequel. 

To  the  most  of  my  arguments  in  reply  to  Mr.  C.,  and 
especially  in  refutation  of  his  position,  that  both  parts  of 
the  passage,  (John  3:5,)  must  be  interpreted  either  ntrr- 
aUy  or  fjgnratively.  and  that  to  adopt  any  other  mode  af 
expounding  this  or  any  other  particular  passage  of  the 
.ccriptures,  would  be  an  unwarrantable  use  of  them. — al- 
though the  subject  was  again  and  again  presented  dis- 
tinctly for  his  crmsideration — he  gave  kg  answer.  This 
fact  made  no  slight  impression  upon  the  minds  of  an  in- 
telligent audience,  and  it  seemed  his  silence  could  only 
be  accounted  for  by  another  fact,  that  he  had  no  ansirer 
to  ^ive.  To  mv  argument  proving  the  falsehood  of  his 
doctrine,  especially  in  relation  to  the  remission  of  sin? 
onlv  througli  immersion,  drawn  from  the  fact,  that  t hid 


CAMPBELLISM. 


205 


Old  Testament  saints  were  certainly  forgiven,  if  at  aH, 
without  baptism;  he  did,  nevertheless,  respond,  by  assert- 
ing, that  as  under  the  gospel  dispensation  immersion  was 
the  only  means  of  remission  of  sins,  so  under  the  former 
dispensation,  sacrifices  were  the  means  whereby  alone  < 
this  blessing  could  be  obtained. 

And  in  proof  that  this  was  no  hasty  or  unadvised  de- 
claration of  the  Bishop,  the  reader  is  referred  to  his 
Extra,  No.  1,  p.  41.  "  Some  ask,  (says  his  Reverence,) 
how  can  water,  which  penetrates  not  the  skin,  reach  the 
conscience?  But  little  do  they  think,  that  in  so  talking, 
they  laugh  at,  and  mock  the  whole  divine  economy, 
under  the  Old  and  New  Testament  institutions:  for,  I 
ask,  did  not  the  sacrifices,  and  Jewish  purgations,  some 
way  reach  the  conscience  of  that  people  ! !  If  they  did 
not,  it  was  all  mere  frivolity  throughout."  And,  I  ask, 
can  it  be  possible  that  the  learned  Bishop  of  Bethany  is 
really  so  ignorant  of  the  true  nature  and  design  of  "  the 
sacrifices  and  Jewish  purgations,"  appointed  under  the 
law?  And,  I  ask,  again,  can  it  be  that  he  had  never 
read,  with  attention,  the  epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  and 
especially  the  9ih  and  10th  chapters  of  that  unparalleled 
production,  before  writing  the  paragraph  above  quoted? 
Had  he  done  so,  must  he  not  have  learned,  however  dull 
of  apprehension  in  relation  to  spiritual  things  he  may  be, 
that  these  sacrifices  "  could  not  make  him  that  did  the 
service  perfect,  as  pertaining  to  the  conscience," — that 
the  utmost  these  "  sacrifices  and  Jewish  purgations" 
could,  in  this  respect,  accomplish,  was  to  sanctify  "  to 
the  purifying  of  the  flesh,"  or  the  removal  of  ceremonial 
uncleanness; — which  were  designed  to  convince  and  re- 
mind them  of  that  moral  pollution,  that  defilement,  as 
well  as  guilt  of  conscience,  from  which  no  sinner  was 
ever  purged  and  prepared,  either  to  serve  or  enjoy  the 
living  God,  unless  by  "  the  blood  of  Christ,  who,  through 
the  Eternal  Spirit,  offered  himself  without  spot  to  God;" 
and  which,  under  the  Jewish  dispensation,  and  until 
Christ  had  actually  appeared,  and  thus  offered  himself 
once  for  all,  was  typified  by  "  those  sacrifices,  which 


206 


DEBATE  ON 


were  offered  year  by  year  continually,"  although  ihey 
could  not  "  make  the  comers  thereunto  perfect."  Had 
he  thus  read  this  part  of  the  word  of  God,  would  he  not, 
as  it  were,  have  heard  the  apostle  declare,  "  It  is  not 
possible  that  the  blood  of  bulls  and  of  goats  should  take 
away  sins?  Wherefore,  when  he,  (Jesus  Christ,)  cometh 
into  the  world,  he  saith,  sacrifice  and  offering  thou 
wouldest  not,  but  a  body  hast  thou  prepared  me.  In 
burnt  offerings  and  sacrifices  for  sin,  thou  hast  had  no 
pleasure:  then  said  I,  Lo,  I  come,  (in  the  volume  of  the 
book  it  is  written  of  me,)  to  do  thy  will,  O  God."  To 
the  confident  inquiry  tlien  of  Bethany's  Bishop,  "  did  not 
the  sacrifices  and  Jewish  purgations  some  way  reach 
the  conscience  of  that  people?"  the  answer  is,  no,  not  at 
all;  provided  he  means,  as  it  is  presumed  he  certainly 
does,  that  they  in  "  some  iray,^^  so  reached  the  conscience 
as  to  purge  it  from  dead  works,  and  to  render  it  "  pure'^ 
and  "  good."    Does  it  then  indeed  follow  that  the  ritual 
service  of  the  Jews,  with  all  its  sacrifices  and  offerings, 
was,  as  alleged  by  the  Bishop,  "  frivolity  throughout?" 
So  it  may  appear  in  his  view,  but  not  in  that  of  the 
w^riter  of  the  letter  to  the  Hebrews.    He  informs  us, 
that  "  in  those  sacrifices  there  was  a  remembrance  again 
made  of  sins  every  year,"  whereby  the  offerers  were 
taught  the  absolute  need  of  a  more  effectual  sacrifice  for 
sin.    Nor  was  this  all,  the  same  writer  gives  us  clearly 
to  understand,  that  although  the  law  could  never  with 
those  sacrifices  which  the  worshippers  under  the  Jewish 
dispensation,  offered  year  by  ye^r  continually,  "  make  the 
comers  thereunto  perfect,"  still  it  had  a  shadow  of  {or 
shadowed  forth  or  represented  typically)  good  things  to 
come,  whereby  they  were  led,  or  so  many  of  them  as 
were  taught  of  God,  by  faith,  to  rest  their  hope  of  ac- 
ceptance with  him,  upon  the  offering  of  the  body  of  .Jesus 
Christ,  the  Lamb  slain  (in  the  purpose  of  God)  from  the 
foundation  of  the  world,  which,  in  due  time,  was  to  be, 
it  has  since  been,  offered  once  for  all.  Instead,  there- 
fore, of  the  ritual  service  being  "  frivolity  throughout,** 
we  may  conclude  that  great  multitudes,  who  are  now 


CAMPBELLISM. 


207 


engaged  in  singing  praises  to  God  and  the  Lamb,  were 
thereby,  as  the  appointed  means,  taught,  as  was  Moses, 
to  esteem  "  the  reproach  of  Christ  greater  riches  than 
the  treasures  of  Egypt."  And  Hke  him,  too,  they  "  died 
in  faith;  not  liaving  received  the  promises,  (which  we 
are  told  are  all  in  Christ  Jesus,)  but  having  seen  them 
afar  off,  and  were  persuaded  of  them,  and  embraced 
them,  and  confessed  that  they  were  strangers  and  pil- 
grims on  the  earth."  I  shall  only  add,  upon  this  part  of 
the  subject,  that  among  other  things  it  was  rephed  to  the 
answer  of  Mr.  C,  to  my  argument  drawn  from  the  fact 
of  the  forgiveness  of  sins  under  the  Old  Testament  dis- 
pensation, and  belbre  the  institution  of  baptism,  that  if 
his  position,  that  under  that  dispensation  there  was  no 
forgiveness  of  sins  without  the  actual  offering  of  sacri- 
fice, be  indeed  true,  the  inspired  king  of  Israel  must  have 
labored  under  a  mistake,  no  less  dangerous  than  palpa- 
ble; when,  oppressed  with  a  painful  sense  of  his  sin  in  the 
matter  of  Uriah,  he  pleaded  so  earnestly  with  God,  not 
only  to  blot  out"  his  transgressions,  but  to  wash  him 
thoroughly  from  his  iniquity,  and  to  cleanse  him  from 
his  sin."  Instead  of  orfering  sacrifices,  and  placing 
his  reliance  upon  them  for  forgiveness,  even  as  the  Bishop 
would  teach  sinners  to  rely  upon  immersion  for  the  same 
blessing,  we  hear  him  declaring,  "Thou  desirest  not 
sacrifice,  else  would  I  give  it:  thou  delightest  not  in  burnt- 
oflfering.  The  sacrifices  of  God,  (or  those  in  which  he 
takes  delight,)  are  a  broken  spirit,  a  broken  and  con- 
trite heart,  O  God,  thou  wilt  not  despise."  We  see,  then, 
that  although  sacrifices  were  of  divine  institution,  under 
the  Old  Testament  dispensation,  as  is  baptism  under  that 
of  the  gospel,  neither  the  one  nor  the  other  were  designed 
to  be,  as  in  the  nature  of  things  it  is  evident  they  could 
not  be,  the  meritorious,  nor  yet  in  any  sense  or  degree, 
the  efficacious  cause  of  the  forgiveness  of  sins,  or  the 
cleansing  of  the  soul  from  moral  pollution. 

Whilst  Mr.  C.  did  not  think  proper  to  attempt  to  give 
any  answer  to  the  most  of  the  arguments  and  proofs 
urged  against  his  doctrine,  he  did  not  cease  frequently 


208 


DEBATE  Oir 


and  roundly  to  assert,  that  littk  or  nothing  was  ad- 
vanced thai  had  any  bearing  upon,  or  relation  to  !l>o 
question  under  discussion;  and  he  alleged,  that  unt:! 
something  was  said  to  the  pc»int  in  issue,  he  would  feel 
himself  under  no  obligation  to  notice  it.   Indeed  it  seem- 
ed, not  only  to  mysell'  but  to  others,  that  he  resorted  to 
this  subterfuge  whenever  he  was  at  a  loss  for  an  answer 
or  reply  to  the  arguments  which  bore  most  directly 
upon  the  point  in  dispute,  and  especially  such  as  apf>ear- 
ed  to  be  subversive  of  his  whole  scheme.    Instead  of 
answering  my  arguments,  or  attempting  to  show  they  had 
no  bearing  upon  the  question  in  dispute,  he  contended,  a3 
he  states  in  his  narrative,  **  that  the  discussion  was  bv 
stipulation,  to  be  confined  to  the  mere  question,  whether 
the  term  regeneration,  was  used  in  the  scriptures  as 
equivalent  to  the  term  immersion.    Though  this  was  an 
incorrect"  representation  of  the  concession  made  at  the 
instance  of  Mr.  C,  (which  was  "  the  waishing  of  regene- 
ration," spoken  of  in  Titus  3:5,  is  equivalent  to  "  being 
born  again,*')  it  made  it  very  apparent,  that  in  obtaining 
that  concession,  he  supposed  he  had  gained  an  important 
advantage,  and  that  his  principal  aim  in  the  discussion, 
was  not  to  elicit  truth,  but  by  any  means,  if  possible,  to 
gain  a  triumph  over  his  opponent    This  was  evident, 
as  well  from  the  fact-  that  he  wished  to  avoid  a  full  and 
free  discussion  by  confining  the  debate  "  to  the  mere 
question,  whether  the  term  regeneration  was  used  in  the 
scriptures  equivalent  to  the  term  immersion,  as  from  the 
fact,  that  he  frequently  referred  to,  and  laid  great  stress 
upon  the  concession,  stating  that  if  his  "  opponent  under- 
stood and  regarded  the  import  of  his  concession  on  Titus 
3d,  he  must  feel  that  he  had  dc^jided  the  cause  against 
liimself    Whilst  I  did  believe,  as  I  still  do,  that  I  well 
understood  the  import  of  the  concession,  I  by  no  means 
felt  that  thereby  I  had  decided  the  cause  against  myself, 
or  that  my  opponent  had  thereby,  in  fact,  gained  any 
advantage  in  the  discussion.    His  observations,  never- 
theless, led  to  the  consideration  of  Titus  3:5,  an  account 
of  which  will  develop  more  fully  wherein  Mr.  C.  seern- 


CAMP  BULL  ISM. 


209 


ed  to  think,  that  in  consequence  of  his  skill  as  a  theok>- 
gicai  polemic,  he  had  obtained  an  advantage  against  his 
antagonist. 

In  iiis  observations  upon,  or  arguments  in  favor  of  his 
system,  atteinpted  to  be  drawn  from  this  passage,  [Titus 
3:5,]  Mr.  C.  opened  more  fully  than  he  had  before  done, 
his  theory  of  regeneration,  or  being  born  of  ^vater.  He 
observed,  as  stated  in  his  narrative,  that  **  regeneration 
(rather  the  washing  of  regeneration,)  having  been  agreed 
to  be  equivalent  to  being  born  again,  it  was  immaterial 
in  the  discussion  which  term"  he  used.  He  next  asi-eri- 
ed  that  in  the  popular  acceptation  of  the  term,  regenera- 
tion included  the  quickening,  the  receiving  of  the  Spirit, 
a  change  of  heart,  and  being  borji.^'  Whereas,  in  the 
scriptural  import,  he  contended,  "  it  denotes  only  the  act 
of  being  born;"  for  the  washing  of  regeneration,  he  further 
alleged,  "  is  contrasted  with,  or,  at  least,  distinguished 
from,  the  renewal  of  the  Holy  Spirit."  He  then  sjroke  vi 
"  the  begetter,"  (viz:  God,)  **  the  impregnation  of 
mind  by  the  word  of  truth,  and  of  the  act  of  being  born 
of  water  and  of  spirit,  as  distinct  matters."  He  also  no- 
ticed "  the  deception,"  which  he  alleged  was  '*  practised 
by"  his  opponents,  '*  in  representing"  him  as  including 
in"  his  "  usage  of  tlie  term  all  their  ideas  of  regeneration, 
and  then  in  representing"  him  *'  as  including  all  their 
'<  views"  in  his  "  sense  of  the  act  of  immersion:"  whereas 
I  he  contended,  that  as  **  a  child  is  begotten  and  made 
j  alive  before  it  is  born,"  so  "  regeneration,  in  scripture  ac- 
ceptation, meant  neither  inore  nor  less,  than  the  act  of 
being  born  of  water,"  which  his  opponent,  he  alleged, 
"  had  already  conceded,  inasmuch  as  he  had  admitted 
J  that  regeneration,  ("  the  washing  of  regeneration"  he 
j  ought  to  have  said,)  '*  meant  being  born  again."  And  in 
connection  with  this  he  asserted  *'  that  Paul  had  associated 
the  idea  o{  water  with  regeneration,  inasmuch  as  he  spoke 
of  the  \vashing  or  bath  of  regeneration." 

That  the  reader  may  have  a  full  and  connected  view 
of  the  Bishop's  theory  of  regeneration,  or  new  birth  bv 
water,  together  with  his  arguments  in  support  of  i;.  l 
19 


220 


©EBATE  OHf 


would  further  rernark,  that  again  he  asked:  "  What  dnes 
tJie  term  regeneration  import  !"  I  had  said  that  1  w  as  no 
advocate  lor  what  he  called  the  ''physical  operations  of 
the  Spirit;*'  he  theretbre  contended,  the  Spirit  (wliich  he 
designated  by  the  word  it,)  must  "  operate  morally,  and  if 
morally,  then  water  and  the  word  must  be  the  instruments: 
and  accordingly  (he  added)  Paul  had  taught  that  the 
churchwas  cleansed  bya  bath  or  washing  of  waierand  the 
word.  But  although  different  views  of  previous  changes 
and  their  causes  might  be  entertained,  still  (he  further 
alleged)  it  mattered  not:  the  question  was  not  what  pre- 
ceded regeneration,  but  n  hat  is  regeneration?"  Again 
he  contended  ii  was  "  the  act  of  being  born;"  for  if  the 
VHishing  of  j'egene.ratio?i^'  was  equivalent  to  being  bom 
again,  (which  I  had  indeed  conceded,)  and  if  the  w  ash- 
ing of  regeneration  was  different  from  the  renewal  of  the 
Holy  Spirit,  then,  unless"  his  opponent  "could  show 
some  other  use  of  water  than  the  baptismal,  it  must  (he 
concluded)  follow  that  the  only  time  the  term  regenera- 
tion occurs  in  the  New  Testament,  applied  to  a  person,  it 
is  used  as  convertible  with  or  equivalent  to  immersion,** 
which  w^as  the  only  question,,  according  to  him,  in 
dispute. 

That  the  foregoing  is  a  correct  statement  of  Mr.  C.*s 
theory  of  regeneration,  the  reader  may  satisfy  himself  by 
referring  to  his  narrative  of  the  debate,  contained  in  his 
Harbinger,  Vol.  2,  Xo.  3,  pp.  1 18,  1 19.  The  first  remark 
I  would  make  upon  the  foregoing  statement,  is,  that  the 
Bishop  seems  to  labor  hard,  either  to  conceal  or  escape 
from  the  glaring  absurdity  of  the  position  which  I  had 
assumed,  and  undertaken  to  prove  to  be  false,  and  which 
he  had  undertaken  to  defend,  in  that  discussion.  To  be 
born  again  and  immersion  is  the  same  thing,  is  the 
doctrine  of  the  Bishop,  and  as  it  would  seem,  the  leading 
nrticlc  in  his  creed,  \\niat  are  we  to  undei*stand  by 
boing  "  born  again?"  Can  a  man,  said  Nicodemus,. 
be  born  w-hen  he  is  old?  "  Verily,"  said  Jesus  in  reply* 
'*  except  a  man  be  born  of  water  and  of  the  Spirit,  he 
can»iot  enter  into  the  kingdom  of  God."    But  what  is  it 


CSLHPBELLISII. 


211 


ta  be  "  bom  of  water?"  According  to  Mr.       it  is  im- 
mersion, and  nothing  else.    For  he  contended  in  the  de- 
bate, and  he  states  the  same  in  his  writings,  (See  Extra 
ISTo.  1,  p.  30,)  that  he  who  has  never  been  buried  in  water, 
•never  has  been  raised  out  of  it.    He  that  has  never  been 
in  the  womb  of  waters,  never  has  been  born  of  water. 
Begotten  of  God  lie  may  be,  but  born  of  God  he  cannot 
be,  until  born  of  water."    But  tlien  the  question  arises,  if 
to  be  "  born  of  water,"  in  the  sense  in  which  the  phrase 
is  used  by  our  Saviour,  be  the  same  thing  with  immer- 
sion, and  the  latter  implies  notliing  mc/re,  can  it  be  that 
immersiGa  is  the  same  thing  with  being  "  bom  again,''' 
"which  is  expressly  declared  to  imply  as  well  the  being 
bom  of  the  Spii'h,''  as  of  water?   Hence  the  glaring  in- 
consistency of  the  Bishop's  doctrine.    When  stripped  of 
Its  covering,  and  brought  forth  naked  to  the  view,  it 
evidently  makes  the  water  all,  and  the  Spirit  nothing. 
To  conceal,  as  it  would  seem,  this  appalling  feature  of 
his  system  from  view,  or  at  least  to  prevent  it  from  ap- 
,pearing  in  all  its  deformity,  he  set  himself  to  weave 
tlie  spider's  web,"  or  to  devise  what  in  the  debate  was 
termed,  and  it  is  still  thought  justly  termed,  his  cobtneb 
theory,  the  outlines  of  which  are  given  above,  and  which 
the  reader,  if  he  has  sufficient  curiosity,  may  find  to  some 
•extent  filled  up  in  the  Bishop's  Extra.    It  is  called  a 
cobweb  theor}%  because  like  the  web  of  the  spider  spun 
from  its  o^vn  bowels,  which,  while  it  hides  its  venomous 
author  from  view,  serves  to  ensnare  the  unwary  insect. 
The  Bishop's  scheme,  the  offspring  of  his  own  brain,  while 
"it  serves  to  conceal,  or  at  least  to  cast  into  the  shade, 
the  poison  of  his  doctrine,  serves  to  beguile  and  entanirle 
unstable  souls.    Whilst  there  is  death  in  the  pot  it  is  not 
perceived,  but  its  contents,  consisting  of  a  small  mixture 
of  truth,  with  a  portion  of  the  poison  error,  sufficient  to 
destroy  the  soul,  are  received  by  too  many,  as  the  only 
means  of  procuring  health  to  the  soul  as  well  as  marrow 
to  the  bones.    Hence  the  introduction  into  his  system,  as 
it  relates  to  the  new  or  second  birth  spoken  of  by  Christ, 
i©f  all  the  steps  or  circumstances  which  according  to  the 


213  DEBATE  Olf 

order  of  nature,  precede  and  accompany  the  bringing 
forth  of  an  infant  into  the  world.  Hence  he  speaks  of 
"  the  begetter,  the  impregnation  of  the  mind  by  the  word 
of  truth,  and  of  the  act  of  being  born  of  water  and  of 
spirit,  as  distinct  matters." 

The  sinner's  mind  is  impregnated  or  prepared  by  an 
historic  belief  of  the  gospel  for  immersion  in  water, 
whereby  he  alone  can  be  born  of  God,  or  in  other  and 
his  own  words,  "  born  of  watisr  and  of  spirit."  By  this 
latter  expression  of  sjpirit,  we  cannot  suppose  he  means 
the  Holy  Spirit,  for  he  is  represented  as  the  begetter  in 
this  ideal  process,  and  this  the  Bishop  expressly  declares 
is  a  distinct  matter  from  being  "  born  of  water  and  of 
spirit"  We  are  not  therefore  by  any  means  to  under- 
stand, that  according  to  this  cobweb  theory  of  the  Bishop, 
there  is  any  special  agency  or  influence  of  the  Holy 
Spirit  exerted  at  the  time,  or  in  what  he  calls  "  the  act** 
of  a  sinner's  bein^^  born  of  God,  or  born  of  water,,  or  m 
other  words,  of  his  being  immersed.  So  far  as  any 
agency  of  the  Spirit  is  required  or  admitted  in  his  system, 
it  is  ail  employed  in  the  impregnation  of  the  mind,  which 
may  have  taken  place  years  before  the  act  of  being  born 
of  God,  or  of  water,  w^hich  it  is  equally  evident,  as  well 
from  the  nature  of  things  as  from  the  Bishop's  own 
words,  must  exclusively  depend  upon  the  will  and  the  act 
of  the  person,  whose  mind  is  impregnated  by  the  word 
of  truth,  or  who,  in  other  wT)rds,  historically  believes  the 
gospel.  "  One  thing  (says  the  Bishop  in  his  Extra,  No.  1, 
p.  30)  w^e  know,  that  it  is  not  a  difficult  matter  for  be- 
lievers to  be  bom  of  water,"  (i.  e.  to  be  immersed  in 
water  and  again  raised  out  of  it,)  "  and  if  any  of  thenr> 
wilfully  neglect,  or  disdain  it,  we  cannot  hope  for  their 
eternal  salvation."  Ao:ain  he  says,  (p.  31,)  "  Those  who 
are  thus  begotten,  and  born  of  God,  are  children  of  God. 
It  would  be  a  monstrous  supposition,  that  such  persons  are 
not  freed  from  their  sins.  To  he  horn  of  God,  and  hyrn 
in  sin,  is  inconceivable.  Remission  of  sins  is  as  certainly 
granted  to  "  the  horn  of  God:'  (i.  e.  to  all  who  historically 
believe  the  gospel  and*  have  been  immersed,)  as  life  eter- 


215 


Tial,  and  deliverance  from  corruption,  will  be  granled  to 
the  children  of  the  resuiTection,  wiien  born  irorn  the 
grave."  Strange  and  inconsistent  indeed  must  be 
conduct  of  aJJ  such  as  behex  e  in  the  soundness  of  the 
Bishop's  system,  yet  neglect  the  performance  of  a  task 
so  easy  as  that  of  immersion  in  water,  (which  he  truly 
declares  to  be  '*  no  difficult  matter,")  or  that  they  shoui-d 
refuse  to  make,  what  he,  in  the  solemn  style  of  his  pubKc 
harangues,  sometimes  calls  *' one  low  bow,"  when  then  * 
by  they  would,  if  his  doctrine  be  true,  (but  that  is  iVte 
query,)  infallibly  secure  the  pardon  of  their  sins,  and  a 
title  to  all  the  privileges  of  the  "  sons  and  daughters  of 
the  Lord  Almighty." 

But  it  will  very  naturally  be  asked,  if  by  being  *•  born 
of  spirit,"  Mr.  C.  does  not  mean  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  what 
does  he  mean?  Although  he  has  not  explained  his  mean- 
ing in  this  particular,  it  is  p-esumed  he  thereby  means  the 
introduction  of  a  person,  upon  being  immersed,  into  that 
supposed  spiritual  atmosphere^  of  which  mention  hs« 
already  been  made,  like  as  a  child  upon  he'ng  torn  '\t 
introduced  into,  and  begins  to  breathe,  our  atmospheric 
air.  Indeed,  according  to  his  system,  so  far  as  it  was 
developed  in  the  discussion,  or  is  exhibited  in  his  wfi- 
tings,  it  wo!»!d  be  difficult  even  to  conceive  what  else  can 
be  intended  by  the  phrase  "  born  of  spirit,'''  as  it  is  v^rit- 
ten  and  used  by  him.  The  manner  in  which  it  is  written 
forbids  the  idea  that  the  Holy  Spirit  is  intended,  and  he 
himself,  as  we  have  seen,  tells  ire  it  is  a  distinct  rn-iWier 
from  the  begetter,  or  the  Holy  Spirit,  Hence  must  be 
something  that,  like  the  remission  of  sins,  ensues  upon 
immersion,  as  a  matter  of  course — and  such  he  declared, 
in  the  public  discussion,  was  the  introduction  of  a  person, 
upon  being  immersed  in^o  this  spiritual  atmosphere,  like 
as  a  cliild,  upon  being  born,  is.  as  a  matter  of  course,  or 
according  to  the  established  order  of  nature,  introduced 
into  and  begins  to  breathe  our  atmospheric  air:  and  thus 
it  would  seem,  that  according  ^o  the  Bishop's  views,  a 
person  that  is  immersed,  is  "  born  of  water  and  of 
spirit," 

*  19 


214 


DEBATE  Olf 


But  Still,  it  maybe  said,  tlie  system  of  Mr.  C.  does  not 
exclude  the  agency  of  the  Holy  Spirit  in  the  second  or 
new  birth,  inasmuch  as  he  is  expressly  recognized  as  the 
begetter,  by  whom  the  mind  is  impregnated  by  the  word 
of  truth.  This  is  true,  and  yet,  herein  it  is, 'that  what, 
perhaps,  may  justly  be  considered  the  grand  deception 
of  his  system,  consists.  Hence  it  is  that  Mr.  C,  as  well 
as  his  followers,  will  often  talk  and  harangue  much  about 
the  Holy  Spirit,  and  in  such  a  manner  too,  as  to  lead  the 
unwary  to  conclude  there  is  no  great  or  material  difler- 
ence,  in  this  respect,  between  their  ^^ews,  and  those 
eiiterrained  by  evangelical  Christians;  and  to  induce 
them  also  to  think  the  latter  wanting  in  charity  and 
w'hristian  afiection,  because  they  cannot  give  a  Camp- 
bellite  the  right  hand  of  fellowship,  nor  "  bid  him  God 
s-peed,"  as  one  that  "  abideth  in  the  doctrine  of  Christ.** 
But  what,  let  it  be  asked,  is  their  view,  or  the  doctrine 
which  they  hold  concerning  the  Holy  Spirit?  Do  they 
believe  in  the  promised  Comforter,  as  being  the  Eternal 
Spirit — God  the  Holy  Spirit,  equal  to  and  one  with  the 
Father  and  the  Son?  As  it  has  before  been  observed, 
although  it  is  supposed  the  Bishop  and  his  followers  pur- 
>>)3ely  avoid  being  expiich  in  their  declarations  on  this 
iiiiportant  point  of  Christian  doctrine,  yet  tl.ere  is  good 
reason  to  believe  they  do  not,  but  that  there  is  a  corres- 
I^Midence,  in  this  respect,  in  their  views,  as  they  relate 
both  to  the  Son  of  God  and  his  Holy  Spirit,  as  is  the 
case  with  Arian?  and  modern  Unitarians,  v.ho  hold  both 
the  one  and  the  other  to  be  inferior  to  the  Father.  And 
with  regard  to  what  is  said  by  the  Bishop  concerning 
the  Holy  Spirit  being  "  the  begetter,"  while  the  mind  i.s 
impregnated  by  the  "  word  of  truth,"  his  menninsr,  so  far 
as  it  has  l>een  ferreted  out,  seems  to  be  as  fol'ows: — 
"  The  Holy  Spirit,  by  hLs  inspiration,  dictated  the  New 
[but  not  the  Old]  Testament,  which  is  Mlie  word  of 
truth,'  that  God  *  sent  hi?  Spirit  into  the  world  with  this  his 
word,*  and  who  is,  some  how,  or  in  some  way,  which  can 
neither  be  expressed  nor  understood,  in  the  word,  and  not 
dfiewhere,  in  consecjuencc  of  which  tiio  word  of  truth 


CAMPBELLISM. 


215 


has  in  itself  the  inherent  power  sufficient  to  im|)reg* 
nate  the  mind  of  every  one  who  liistorically  believes  it, 
in  such  manner,  that  u))on  his  being  immei  sed  he  is  born 
of  God,  becomes  a  child  of  C^od,  and  receives  the  remis- 
sjon  of  his  sins,  as  certainly  '  as  life  eternal,  &c.,  will  be 
granted  to  the  children  of  the  resurrection  when  boru 
from  the  grave.' " 

That  the  view  which  has  thus  been  taken,  or  the  expo- 
sition which  has  thus  been  given,  of  the  Bishop's  scheme 
of  the  renovation  of  a  sinner,  and  his  restoration  to  the 
favor  of  God,  is  correct,  would  seem  pretty  clearly  to 
appear  from  his  answer  to  "objection  1,  [Extra  No.  1, 
p.  29,]  raised  by  himself  against  liis  views  in  the  follow- 
ing words — "  You  tlien  make  every  immersed  person  ft 
child  of  God,  by  the  very  act  of  immersion;  and  you  rep- 
resent every  person  as  born  of  God,  who  is  born  of  wa- 
ter, or  immersed."  He  answers  the  objection  thus: 
"  Provided  always,  that  he  has  been  begotten  of  God;  or, 
that  he  has  been  impregnated  by  the  gospel.  If  quick- 
ened by  the  Spirit  of  God  before  he  is  buried  in  the  water, 
he  is  born  of  God,  whenever  he  is  born  of  water;  just  as 
every  other  child  is  born  of  its  father,  wi)en  born  of  its 
mother.  But  if  he  do  not  believe  the  gospel,  or,  in  other 
words,  if  he  be  not  quickened  by  the  Word,  he  is  not 
born  of  God,  when  he  is  born  of  water;  he  is,  to  speak  after 
the  manner  of  men,  still  horny  This,  in  connection  with 
what  precedes  in  relation  to  the  same  subject,  it  issu})po- 
sed,  will  furnish  a  view  of  the  scheme  of  Mr.  C.  sufficient 
to  enable  the  reader  to  form  a  proper  estimate  of  its 
worth.  It  will  be  perceived,  in  his  answer  to  the  objec- 
tion above  stated,  he  likens  God,  or  the  Spirit  of  God,  to 
the  natural  father,  and  water  to  the  mother  of  a  child — 
that  as  a  child  cannot  be  said  to  be  born  of  (or  rather 
unto)  its  father,  until  first  born  of  its  mother,  so  he  con- 
tends that  a  person  cannot  be  born  of  God  until  born  of 
water,  or  in  other  words  immersed.  But  if  a  person  \hm 
immers(*d  do  not  l)elieve  the  gospel,  (with  an  histc/rdc 
faith,)  he  is  not  born  of  God.  when  born  of  water,  or 
when  immersed,  but  he  is    still  born."    How  mucli,  if 


216 


DEBATE  OS 


any  of  ihis,  is  deduced  from  or  supported  by  the  word 
of  God,  and  how  much  is  mere  stujf^ihe  intelhgent  read- 
er will  be  enabled,  without  much  dihicuity,  to  determine^ 
It  would,  however,  be  somewhat  gratifying  to  know  whc», 
upon  the  Bishop's  principles,  could  be  immersed  and  nc»t 
believe  tiie  gospel,  unless  it  be  a  sheer  infidel,  acting  the 
part  of  a  base  and  conscious  h)  jjocrite,  with  a  view  to 
accomplish  some  sinister  design.  If  a  man  believe  the 
g«jspel  at  all,  can  it  be  with  a  lower  degree  of  faith  than 
that  which  is  merely  historic?  And  if  he  thus  believes,  is 
not  his  mind,  according  to  Mr.  C,  impregnated  by  tlie 
word  of  truth?  and  is  he  not  begotten  of  God?  And  how 
then  shall  we  account  for  the  numerous  cases  wherein  il 
is  evident,  from  their  subsequent  life  and  conduct,  as  it 
was  with  regard  to  Simon  the  sorcerer,  that  they  are  not 
born  of  God,  or  forgiven  of  God,  though  they  have  like 
him  been  baptized;  but  remain,  as  he  did,  "  in  the  gall  of 
bitterness  and  the  bonds  of  iniquity,"  though  there  may 
be  good  reason  to  conclude  they  historically  believed  the 
gospel,  as  we  are  assured  by  the  sacred  record  he  did? 
There  is  another  difficulty  attending  this  scheme  of  idr, 
C,  of  which  he  has  not.  so  far  as  I  know,  attempted  to 
furnish  any  solution.  What  shall  be  done  whh  the  "  still 
born,-^  provided  they  should  at  any  time  thereafter  be- 
come impregnated  by  the  word,  or  make  a  second,  or  a 
third,  or  ev^en  a  fourth,  profession  of  a  historic  belief  of  the 
gospel?  Shall  they  be  immersed,  and  reimmersed,  and 
immersed  yet  again  and  again,  until  there  shall  be  some 
evidence  that  they  are  not  merely  stillborn,"  but  hving 
children  of  God?  It  was  my  wish  and  intention  to  have 
presented  this  difficult}^  or  objection,  with  others  not  a 
few,  to  Mr.  C.  during  the  discussion,  for  his  considera- 
tion and  solution,  but  I  was  prevented  by  the  want  of 
time. 

But  what  I  intended  chiefly  to  remark  upon  this  ex- 
tract, was,  in  the  first  place,  we  see  a  confirmation  of 
what  W'as  before  alleged,  concerning  the  manner  in  which 
Mr.  C,  as  well  as  his  followers,  speak  of  the  Holy  Spirit. 
He  here  speaks  of  the  necessity  of  a  person  being 


CAMPBELLISM. 


217 


**  quickened  by  the  Spirit  of  God  before  he  is  buried  in 
the  water,"  in  order  to  his  being  born  of  God,"  when 
**  he  is  born  of  water,"  or  when  he  is  immersed.  How 
many  upon  reading  this  would  be  ready  to  conclude  that 
his  views,  so  far  as  they  relate  to  the  author  and  efficient 
cause  of  all  spiritual  life  in  the  soul  of  man,  accord  with 
those  of  evangelical  Christians?  And  on  the  other  hand, 
how  few  of  such  as  had  by  other  means  acquired  some 
knowledge  of  his  principles,  would,  from  this  paragraph, 
learn  any  thing  concerning  his  real  sentiments  in  relation 
to  this  subject?  Let  it  then  be  carefully  observed,  that 
though  he  speaks  of  a  person  being  quickened  by  the 
Spirit  of  God,  he  afterwards  alleges  that  "if  he  do  not 
believe  the  gospel,  or  in  other  words,  if  he  be  not  quickened 
by  the  Word,"  &c.;  and  thus  it  would  seem  evident  that, 
according  to  his  system,  the  Spirit  of  God  and  the  word 
of  God  are  identified;  that  however  they  may  be  spoken 
of  by  different  names,  or  however  we  may  conceive  of 
them  as  separate  one  from  the  other,  they  have  not,  never- 
theless, at  least  as  regards  this  world,  any  separate  exist- 
ence whatever,  more  than  have  the  soul  and  body  of  man 
in  his  present  state  of  being,  so  that  what  is  predicated 
of  one  may  be,  at  least  for  the  most  part,  predicated  of 
the  other  also.  Nor  let  it  be  supposed  that  when  he 
speaks  of  a  person  not  being  quickened  by  the  Word,  that 
he  alludes  to  the  word  of  God  as  the  instrument 
or  sword  in  the  hand  of  the  Spirit  of  God,  or  that  he  re- 
gards the  Spirit  as  the  great  and  only  efficient  cause  of 
the  quickening  of  the  soul  naturally  dead  in  sins.  His 
sentiments,  so  far  as  they  are  known,  together  with  the 
manner  in  which  he  has  written  the  term  "  Word,"  for- 
bids the  indulgence  of  this  supposition.  When  he  speaks 
of  being  born  of  water  and  of  the  Spirit,  he  does  not  use 
the  latter  phrase,  "  born  of  the  Spirit,"  nor  yet  the  word 
Spirit,  as  it  is  in  our  version,  and  as  he  ever  does  him- 
self when  he  would  designate  Holy  Spirit,  but  he  writes 
it  thus,  "  born  of  spirit''  On  the  other  hand,  in  the  par- 
agraph quoted,  when  he  speaks  of  a  person  not  being 
quickened  by  the  wore/,  he  does  not  write  the  term  as 


218 


DEBATE  (XK 


would  they,  who  designed  simply  to  designate  the  writ- 
ten word,  but  as  would  such  as  wished  to  describe  a  per- 
son. Hence  he  writes  not  word,  but  Word.  Nor  does 
the  tenor  of  his  language,  so  far  as  it  relates  to  "  the 
word,"  comport  with  that  dictated  by  the  Spirit  of  God 
when  "  the  word"  is  spoken  of  as  the  instrument  whereby 
a  soul  is  quickened  and  made  alive  unto  God.  The  scrip- 
tures invariably  ascribe  this  quickening  to  God,  through 
the  work  or  operation  of  his  Spirit,  whereas  "  the  word"  i 
when  spoken  of  in  connection  with  the  same  subject,  is 
intended  merely  as  an  instrument,  or  as  it  is  emphatically 
called  "  the  sword  of  the  Spirit."  Thus  the  apostle,  in  his 
letter  to  the  Ephesians,  (chap.  2:1.)  declares,  "  You  hath 
he  quickened,  who  were  dead  in  trespasses  and  sins." 
And  although  the  words,  " hath  he  quickened"  have  in  ; 
this  passage  been  supplied  by  our  translators,  yet  the  se- 
quel of  the  chapter  clearly  shows  they  were  warranted 
in  so  doing.  It  is  added  (ver.  4 — 6,)  "  But  God,  who  is 
rich  in  mercy,  for  his  great  love  wherewith  he  loved  us,  J 
even  when  we  were  dead  in  sins,  hath  quickened  us  to- 
gether with  Christ;  (by  grace  ye  are  saved;)  and  ha^ 
raised  us  up  together,  and  made  us  sit  together  in  heav- 
enly places,  in  Christ  Jesus."  The  same  truth  is  sub- 
stantially repeated  in  the  epistle  of  the  same  apostle  to 
the  Colossians,  (chap.  2:13.)  Thus  we  see  this  quicken- 
ing is  expressly  ascribed  to  God — the  Holy  Spirit  is  truly 
God;  and  as  we  have  before  seen,  it  is  expressly  de- 
clared, "  It  is  the  Spirit  that  quickeneth."  On  the  other 
hand,  as  has  been  already  stated,  we  find  "  the  word" 
spoken  of  as  the  instrument  whereby  the  Spirit  produces 
this  great  change  upon  the  character  and  state  of  a  sin-  ' 
ner.  Thus  the  apostle  James,  (chap.  1:18,)  "  Of  his  own 
will  begat  he  us  with  the  word  of  truth,  that  we  should 
be  a  kind  of  first  fruits  of  his  creatures."  In  like  man- 
ner Peter,  (1  Pet.  1:2.3,)  describes  the  saints  as  "  being 
born  again,  not  of  corruptible  seed  but  of  incorruptible, 
by  the  word  of  God  which  liveth  and  abideth  forever." 
The  reader  of  these  passages  can  be  at  no  loss  to  under- 
stand the  nature  of  the  agency  of  "  the  word"  in  the 


CAMPBELLISM. 


2ia 


quickening  of  a  sinner.  He  cannot  but  perceive  that  it 
is  merely  instrumental,  (though,  as  might  well  be  suppo- 
sed, exactly  adapted  to  the  desired  end,)  while  the  effi- 
ciency is  ascribed  to  God  alune.  For  although  God  is 
not  mentioned  in  the  latter  passage,  yet  the  saint  is  de- 
scribed as  being  born  again,  of  the  word,  not  as  the 
efficient  cause,  but  as  the  incorruptible  seed,  &c.  INow 
we  know  that  however  carefully  natural  seeds  may  be 
sown  in  the  earth,  and  although  they  may  be  possessed 
of  a  germinating  principle,  still,  without  the  genial  influ- 
ence of  light,  heat,  and  moisture,  they  cannot  begin  to 
vegetate,  much  less  to  grow  and  thrive;  and  we  know 
further,  that  these  are  only  second  causes,  all  of  which 
are  dependent  upon  the  great  First  Cause,  not  only  for 
their  existence,  but  for  all  their  efficacious  agency,  in  the 
production  of  the  fruits  of  the  earth. 

Now  the  view  which  Mr.  C.  gives  of  this  important 
sutjject,  does  not  accord  with  that  in  the  scriptures, 
especially  as  he  seems  evidently  to  consider  "  the  Spirit" 
and  "  the  Word,"  at  least  so  far  as  they  relate  to  this 
quickening,  to  be  the  same.  Nor  is  it  indeed  to  be  supposed 
that  he  holds  either  the  one  or  the  other,  to  be  the  (miy 
efficient  cause  of  the  quickening  of  a  person  dead  in 
sins;  for  he  evidently  represents  this  quickening  of  a  sin- 
ner to  be  the  same  wath  his  belie^-ing  the  gospel.  *'  But, 
(says  the  Bishop,)  if  he  do  not  believe  the  gospel,  or  in 
other  words,  if  he  he  not  quickened  by  the  Word,*'  &c.  It 
is  well  known  that  he  contends  there  is  no  other  or  higlier 
belief  of  the  gospel  than  that  which  is  purely  historic, 
and  that  he  farther  contends,  (and  that  with  truth  on  his 
side,)  that  no  special  divine  influence,  or  help  from  on 
high,  is  necessary  to  enable  or  prepare  a  person  of  com- 
mon understanding,  who  hears  the  gospel,  to  exercise 
this  faith.  The  evident  and  legitimate  result,  then,  of 
this  inquiry  into  Mr.  C.'s  view  of  the  quickening  of  a 
sinner  by  "  the  Spirit  of  God,"  or  by  "  the  Word,"  when 
it  is  analysed,  is  this, — that  in  his  view  it  amounts  to 
nothing  more  than  the  exercise  of  his  natural  powers  in 
reading  and  (historically)  believing  the  gospel 


220 


DEBATB  ON 


But  I  would  again  remark  upon  this  extract  from  tli6 
Bishop's  Extra,  that  while  he  speaks  of  the  quickeniiig 
of  a  person  by  the  Spirit,  he  either  confounds  it,  or 
understands  it  to  be  the  same,  with  his  having  been  be- 
gotten of  God,  as  well  as  with  his  having  been  im])rcg- 
nated  by  the  gospel.  "  Provided  always  that  he  hag 
been  begotten  of  God  ;  or,  that  he  has  been  impregnated 
by  the  gospel.  If  quickened  (he  adds)  by  the  Spirit  of 
God  before  he  is  buried  in  the  water,  he  is  born  of  God,** 
&c.  Here  he  seems  to  strive  hard  to  maintain  his  suf>- 
posed  analogies  between  the  production  and  birth  of  a 
living  intant,  and  that  of  a  {person  born  of  God,  as  he 
contends,  through  immersion,  i  knows  indeed,  that  the 
mind  of  a  sinner,  previous  to  his  being  born  again,  is 
usually  arrested  by  the  Spirit  of  God,  through  the  means 
of  his  word  or  providential  dispensations,  and  his  atten- 
tion, with  intense  interest,  is  turned,  not  only  to  his  own 
situation  and  character  as  a  sinner,  (for  the  Spirit  of 
truth  convinces  him  "  of  sin,  of  righteousness,  and  of 
judgment,")  but  also  to  the  scriptures,  to  which  sure 
word  of  prophecy  he  gives  earnest  heed,  as  to  "  light 
shining  in  a  dark  place,  until  the  day  dawns  and  the  day 
star  arises  in  his  heart,"  with  which  he  also  arises  from 
a  state  of  death  and  darkness,  to  that  of  life  and  light, 
and  passes  from  a  state  of  condemnation,  to  that  of  favor 
and  acceptance  with  God,  through  faith  in  Jesus  Christ. 
But  this  is  not  what  Mr.  C.  means  by  "  the  impregnation 
of  the  mind."  This  work  of  the  conviction  of  sin  by  the 
Spirit  of  God,  and  consequent  solemn  concern  which 
leads  a  sinner  to  inquire,  as  did  the  jailer,  "  What  shaO 
I  do  to  be  saved?"  is  denied,  ridiculed  and  scouted  at,  by 
the  Bishop  of  Bethany,  who  seems  to  consider  the  deliv- 
erance of  a  sinner  from  the  powder  of  sin  and  darkness, 
and  his  translation  into  the  kingdom  of  God,  in  other 
words,  his  passing  "  from  death  unto  hfe,"  as  a  mere 
natural  process,  entirely  within  the  compass  of  his  own 
power,  and  consisting  in  a  succession  of  acts,  which  he 
can  perform  with  as  much  ease,  as  are  the  various  parts 
of  the  labor  of  a  skilful  mechanic,  in  the  production  of 


CAMPBELUSM. 


221 


a  fabric,  or  a  machine,  however  corapHcated  the  ore  or 
the  other  may  be. 

Let  us  now  recur  to  consider  more  particularly  the 
foundation  of  this  cobweb  theory  of  the  new  birth.  It 
has,  I  trust,  been  made  sufficiently  to  appear,  that  even 
according  to  his  own  principles,  the  position  "  that  to  be 
born  again  and  to  be  immersed  is  the  same  thing,"  is 
untrue,  unless  he  makes,  as  he  seems  to  do,  the  water 
every  thing,  and  the  Spirit  nothing.    Because,  if  by  the 
single  expression,  ''horn  of  water,' we  are,  as  he  fre- 
quently asserts,  to  understand  immersion  and  nothing 
else;  and  if,  as  it  not  only  follows  from  this,  but  as  he 
contends,  immersion  implies  nothing  more  than  the  simple 
act  of  being  born  of  water,  or  being  buried  in  and  again 
raised  out  of  that  element;  then  it  is  clear  from  the  de- 
claration of  Christ,  that  immersion  is  not  equivalent  to, 
or  the  same  thing  with  being  born  again,  for  in  order  to 
this,  a  person  must  be  born  not  only  of  water,  but  of  the 
Spirit.    According  to  the  views  of  Mr.  C,  he  mii!?t 
make  these  two  distinct  things,  if  he  makes  the  being 
*'  born  of  the  Spirit,"  to  mean  any  thing;  whereas  im- 
mersion, upon  his  principles,  implies  only  the  former,  but 
excludes  the  latter.  Nor  can  it  be  with  any  truth  alleged, 
that  the  views  of  evangeHcal  Christians  involve  the  same 
absurdity.    They  hold  that  the  same  truth  is  represented 
by  both  expressions,  first  figuratively,  or  by  the  emblem 
of  water,  and  again,  literally,  by  reference  to  the  only 
and  great  efficient  cause  of  this  new  birth,  or  new  crea- 
tion.   This  absurdity,  into  which  Mr.  C.  seems,  notwith- 
standing all  his  acumen,  to  have  been  betrayed  in  weav- 
ing his  web,  (probably  by  the  distraction  of  his  thoughts 
in  consequence  of  his  great  hurry  of  business,)  he  must 
have  discovered  after  the  publication  of  his  Extra,  and 
before  the  discussion  at  Nashville;  and  hence,  it  is  sup- 
posed, that  when  the  proposition  which  I  have  been  con- 
sidering, was  offered  for  discussion,  he  saw  it  necessan^ 
to  require  the  concession  that  was  made,  concerning  the 
import  of  "the  washing  of  regeneration,"  (Titus  3:5,) 
whereby  it  would  seem  clearly  to  appear,  he  supposed  h« 


would  be  eiiabred  lo  sustain  his  position,  by  substitatirg-, 
as  he  did,  the  term  regeneration  for  the  expression 
borjt  againy  Having,  by  concession,  gained  the  point 
tiiat  "  the  washing  of  regeneration,"  and  being  born 
again,  are  the  same,  he  next  labored  hard  to  show,  not 
so  much  from  other  parts  of  the  word  of  God,  as  by  a 
reference  To  alleged  human  authorities,  (of  which  a  great 
display  is  made  also  in  his  Extra,)  that  the  apostle  in 
using  the  expression,  "  The  washing  of  regeneration," 
had  a  direct  reference  to  baptism;  and  in  this  part  of  his 
argument,  he  laid  great  stress,  (as  he  hkewise  does  in 
his  Extra,  p.  28^,)  upon  the  circumstance  that  many 
writers  who  had  the  character  of  being  evangelical,  sup- 
posed, or  admitted  it  to  be  probable,  that  in  this  expres- 
sion there  is  an  allusion  to  the  water  of  baptism;  (as  the 
visible  or  outward  sign  of  the  invisible  or  spiritual  grace^ 
communicated  by  the  baptism  of  the  Holy  Ghost,)  and 
hence  he  contended  that,  his  opponents  themselves  being 
judges,  he  had  gained  another  point,  viz.  that  the  only 
time  the  word  regeneration  occurs  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment, with  a  reference  to  a  personal  change,  it  means^ 
or  is  equivalent  to  immersion;"  and,  therefore,  he  con- 
tended, it  was  a  matter  established,  that  "  regeneration 
and  immerswn  are  two  names  for  the  same  thing,^^  He 
then  dwelt  upon  what  he  calls  "  the  popular  acceptation" 
of  the  term  regejitrationy  as  distinguished  from  what  lie 
considered  its  "  biblical  import."  According  to  the 
former,  he  alleged  it  included  the  quickening,  the  receiv- 
ing of  the  Spirit,  a  change  of  heart,  and  being  born; 
but  "  in  the  scriptural  import,  it  denotes  only  the  act  of 
being  bortiJ'^  From  these  premises  he  d"ew  the  conclu- 
sion, which  he  wished  to  be  considered  as  logical  and 
just,  and  which,  probably,  appeared  to  be  so  in  the  view 
of  his  followers,  that  "  being  born  again,"  and  "  being 
immersed,"  are  the  same  thing.  For  having,  as  he  con- 
tended, established  the  point  that  immersion  is  equivalent 
to  regeneration,  and  it  having  been  conceded  that  "  the 
washing  of  regeneration,"  is  of  the  same  import  with 
being  "  horn  again,"  then  he  contended  it  followed,  and 


CAMPBELUSM, 


1123 


th&l  for  the  plain  reason,  that  things  which  are  equal 
to  the  same  thing,  are  equal  to  one  another,"  that  "  being 
born  again  and  being  immersed,  are  the  same  thing." 

On  the  otlier  iiand,  it  was  contended,  that  his  argument 
was  nothing  better  than  a  sophism;  that  its  chief  fallacy 
consisted  in  two  particulars;  first,  in  having  untruly  re- 
presented the  scriptural  import  of  the  term  regeneration, 
to  denote  ''only  tlie  act  of  being  born:'  Second,  in  having, 
contrary  to  the  truth,  assumed  it  as  a  point  established, 
that  by  "  the  washing^'  spoken  of  by  the  apostle,  in  con- 
'nection  with  regeneration,  is  meant  immersion. 

In  determining  the  scriptural  import  of  the  term  rege- 
neration, as  used  by  the  apostle,  (Titus  3:5,)  the  Bishop, 
notwithstanding  all  his  pretensions  to  learning,  did  not, 
-as  he  frequently  does,  enter  upon  a  critical  examination 
of  the  original  term.  This  he  carefully  forbears  to  do, 
and  no  doubt  for  the  plain  reason,  that  the  import  of  the 
original  word  is  too  obvious,  to  admit  of  its  being  wrest- 
ed from  its  true  meaning,  in  such  manner  as  to  answer 
his  purpose.  The  original,  (paliggenesia,)  is  a  conf^- 
pounded  word;  it  comes  from  palin,  again^  and  gewesis, 
a  birth,  or  a  being  born.  And  according  to  Parkhurst,  a 
lexicographer,  cited  by  the  Bishop  himself,  as  an  autho- 
rity in  relation  to  another  word  in  the  same  passage, 
and  indeed  according  to  the  evident  import  of  its  roots, 
jt  means,  not  as  he  has  untruly  represented,  the  mere 
"  act  (or  circumstance)  of  being  born,"  but  "  a  being 
born  again,^'  not  merely  a  birth,  "  but  a  new  birth,"  or 
regeneration,  which,  from  its  root  and  formation,  is  evi- 
dently in  its  application  to  this  subject,  the  same  thing, 
if  the  word  generation,  as  it  is  found  in  this  compounded 
term,  means  production,  as  it  certainly  does,  then  rege- 
neration as  certainly  means  a  reproduction.  Thus  the 
term  is  sometimes  technically  used  to  denote  the  restora^ 
tion  of  metals  to  their  primitive  state,  after  having  been 
decomposed  and  apparently  destroyed,  by  a  chemical 
process.  Thus  the  term  regeneration,  as  applied  (Titus 
3:.5,)  to  spiritual  things,  and  "  with  a  reference  to  a  per- 
sonal change,"  in  the  true  spirit  or  meaning  of  the  origi- 


DEBATE  Oir 


nal  word  it  is  designed  to  translate,  denotes  the  com- 
mencement of  that  spiritual  renovation  of  human  nature^ 
whereby  man  is  in  due  time  perfectly  restored  to  his 
primitive  state,  as  it  regards  the  image  of  God,  in  which 
he  was  at  first  created,  and  which  was  really  destroyed 
or  lost  by  the  fall,  or  in  other  words,  to  that  "  holiness 
without  which  no  man  shall  see  the  Lord."  Yet,  Mr. 
C,  contrary  to  the  evident  meaning,  as  well  of  the  term 
regeneration,  as  of  the  original  w^ords,  of  which  it  is  a 
true  translation,  would  have  it  believed  that  its  scriptural 
meaning  is  simply  what  he  calls  "  the  act  of  being  born."^ 
Whether  this  be  the  resuh  oi  ignorance  or  design,  let  the 
candid  and  intelligent  reader  judge;  for  to  every  such 
reader,  it  is  supposed,  it  must  evidently  appear,  that  as 
in  fixing  the  meaning  of  the  phrase,  "  born  again,"  he 
overlooks  that  most  important  part  of  the  explanation 
given  by  Christ,  i.  e.  "  born  of  the  Spirit,"  so,  in  defining 
the  term  regeneration,  he  rejects  that  part  of  the  com- 
pounded word  which  signifies  "  again,'''  and  which 
renders  it  exactly  equivalent,  not  to  "  the  (mere)  act  of 
being  born,"  but  to  being  "  born  again,"  But  says,  Mr, 
0.,  ^'^Paul  has  associated  the  idea  of  water  with  regene- 
tion,"  inasmuch  as  he  speaks  "  of  the  washing  of  regene- 
ration," and  he  alleges  that  it  is  conceded  by  the  most 
learned  Pedobaptists  and  Baptists,"  that  this  phrase 
**  refers  to  (baptism)  immersion."  In  reply,  I  observe,  in 
the  first  place,  upon  the  supposition  that  in  this  pass2[ge 
there  is  an  allusion  to  the  application  of  w^ater  in  baptism, 
as  is  conceded,  according  to  the  array  of  human  autho- 
rities exhibited  by  the  Bishop,  (Extra,  p.  28,)  by  Dr. 
Macknight,  Parkhurst,  in  his  lexicon,  and  even  Matthew 
Henry  and  others,  what  does  the  concession  amount  to? 
That  it  is  only  by  the  water  of  baptism  that  a  person  can 
be  born  of  God,  or  wash  away  his  sins,  or  obtain  forgive- 
ness, (St-c?  No.  But  (and  that  even  according  to  his  chief 
Presbyterian  authority.  Dr.  Macknight  J  the  allusion  is 
to  the  water  of  baptism  as  "  an  ernblem  of  the  purifica- 
tion of  the  soul  from  sin."  But  let  the  point  contended 
for  be  conceded  by  whom  it  may,  it  furnishes  no  con- 


CAMPBELLISM, 


^elusive  reason  why  any  should  believe  that  in  this  y-hs- 
«age,  or  in  thai  in  John,"  (chapter  3:5,)  there  is  any  allusion 
to  baptism,  unless  it  can  be  shown  from  the  word  of 
God.  The  direction  of  our  Master  in  heaven,  is  to  call 
no  man  master  on  earth.  While,  as  has  already  been 
intimated,  it  is  not  my  intention  to  speak  positively,  in 
relation  to  this  point,  as  perhaps  there  is  no  method  of 
arriving  at  absolute  certainty  concerning  it, — I  shall  only 
assign  a  reason  or  two,  why  I  incline  to  think,  the  opin- 
ion of  others  to  the  contrary  notwithstanding,  there  is 
no  allusion  to  baptism  in  either  of  the  foregoing  passages. 
When  our  Lord  held  his  conversation  with  Nicodemu?, 
the  ordinance  of  Christian  baptism  had  not  been  insti- 
tuted, and,  it  is  presumed,  Mr.  C  himself  will  not  con- 
tend that  by  the  expression,  "  born  again,"  he  had  any 
reference  to  John's  baptism,  which  ceased  when  the  gos- 
pel dispensation  had  been  fully  introduced.  As  well,  there- 
fore, might  it  be  contended  that  David  had  an  allusion  to 
baptism,  when,  under  the  inspiration  of  the  Spirit,  he 
prayed,  "  Wash  me  thoroughly  from  my  iniquity,  and 
cleanse  me  from  my  sin,"  as  that  Christ  alluded  to  this 
ordinance  when  he  declared,  that  "except  a  man  be  born 
■of  water  and  of  the  Spirit,  he  cannot  enter  into  the  kinqr- 
4om  of  God."  Besides,  do  we  not  know  that  after  he 
made  this  declaration,  and  during  the  period  of  his  min- 
istry on  earth,  he  exercised  the  power  of  forgiving  sins 
with  which  he  was  invested,  in  instances  not  a  few, 
where  W3  have  not  the  least  intimation  that  the  persons 
were  at  the  time,  or  any  time  thereafter,  baptized?  And 
did  he  not,  when  on  the  cross,  in  answer  to  the  prayer 
of  the  penitent  thief,  virtually  declare  the  forgiveness*  of 
his  sins,  in  the  promise  that  he  should  the  same  day  be 
with  himself  in  paradise?  And,  surely,  it  cannot  be  pre- 
tended, that  in  this  case,  it  was  in  any  sense  through  the 
literal  intervention  of  water,  that  this  malefactor  was 
prepared  to  enter  into  the  kingdom  of  God. 

With  regard  to  the  passage  more  iinmediately  under 
consideration,  (Titus  3:5,)  although  the  ordinance  of 
baptism  had  been  instituted  and  fully  acted  upon  before 

*2d 


DKBATE  ON 


it  was  penned  by  The  apostle,  yet  I  can  see  no  more  j 
snfficierit  reason  to  conclude  that  therein  is  literal  allii-  j 
sion  to  any  water,  whetlier  of  baptism  or  not,  than  that 
the  Psahnist  had  any  literal  allusion  to  water,  \Ahen  he 
prayed  that  God  would  wash  him  from  his  iniquity,  &c., 
or  that  there  is  any  literal  allusion  to  water  in  the  })as- 
8age  ill  Ezekiel,  before  referred  to,  wherein  it  is  declared, 
•*  I  will  sprinkle  clean  water  upon  you,"  &c.  If  the 
passage  contained  an  allusion  to  baptism,  as  plain  as  is 
the  allusion  of  the  Psalmist,  in  another  part  of  his  prayer, 
(Psalms  51:7,)  to  the  Jewish  ritual,  then,  indeed,  the 
point  might  be  conceded  :  "  Purge  me  with  hyssop,  and 
I  shall  be  clean;  wash  me,  and  I  shall  be  whiter  than 
snow.*'  Here  is  a  plain  allusion  to  the  purgation  that 
was  appointed  (Numbers  chapter  19,)  for  removing 
ceremonial  undeanness;  but  in  the  passage  under  consi- 
deration, there  is  no  similar  allusion  to  baptism,  nor  can 
it  be  shown  from  any  parallel  or  other  passage  of  scrip- 
ture, so  far  as  T  know,  that  it  contains  any ///era/ allusion 
to  water  of  any  kind.  But  there  is  another  argument, 
which  would  seem  to  be  conclusive,  against  the  supposi- 
tion that  there  is  in  this  passage  any  allusion  whatever  to 
imma'sion:  "  He  saved  us,  (says  the  apostle,)  by  the 
washing  of  regeneration  and  renewing  of  the  Holy 
(•rhost:  which,  (he  adds  in  verse  6,)  he  shed  on  us 
abundan;]v,  through  Jesus  ('hrist  our  Saviour."  The 
word  here  rendered  "  shed"  comes  from  a  root  which 
signifies  "  to  pour,"  or  j)our  forth,  and  is  in  composition 
with  a  preposition  which  signifies  "  out'''  so  that  here  is 
an  evidcTit  allusion  to,  as  well  as  evidence  of  the  fulfil- 
ment, at  least,  in  part,  of  those  prophecies  or  promises 
of  God,  that  he  would  "  pour  out"  his  Spirit,  not  only  { 
VTXjn  the  seed,  and  his  blessing  upon  the  oftspring  of  his 
people,  but  that  he  would  "  pour  out"  his  Spirit  upon  all 
tlesn.  This  not  only  shows  that  here  is  no  allusion  to 
i/mnsrsioTJ,  but  that  the  quickening  and  sanctifying 
inPmences  or  saving  grace  of  the  Spirit,  are  intended  by 
the  apostle,  when  he  speaks  of  "  the  w  ashing  of  regene- 
ration, and  the  renewing  of  the  Holy  Ghost."    If  Mr. 


CAMPBELLISBT. 


21>7 


r.  sliojild  attempf,  as  it  is  quite  lil^ely  be  may,  to  confine 
the  reference  made  in  verse  6,  to  "  the  renewing  of  '.i;e 
Holy  Ghost/'  and  to  the  exclusion  of  the  washing  of 
regeneration,"  it  may,  in  the  first  place,  be  replied,  by  the 
way  of  argiimerftum  ad  hominewy  thai  according  to  his 
mode  of  construing  the  Greek  language,  and  the  positicsn 
for  which  he  strongly  contended  in  the  first  debate,  in 
relation  to  the  word  "  touto,'"  (Ei)hesians  2:8,)  with  a 
view  to  show  that  faith  is  not,  according  \o  his  view,  the 
gift  of  God:  the  reference  in  this  case,  (Titus  6,)  must 
be  confined  exclusively  to  the  washing  of  regeneration. 
The  word  "  loutrou"  (washing,)  is  jieiUer  gender,  and 
so  is  the  relative  in  verse  8,  translated  which,'-  while 
the  word  which  is  translated  revem'ngy^*  (or  renova- 
tion,) is  feminine.  Hence,  according  to  the  philology 
of  the  learned  Bishop,  the  neuter  relative  cannot  refer  to 
a  feminine  antecedent^  but  must  relate  alone  to  the  word 
translated  washing,  v/hich  is  of  the  same  gender.  But 
upon  this  circumstance  alone,  I  ])lace  no  reliance  in  de- 
termining to  what  the  relative  which,  in  this  case 
refers;  it  is  mentioned  more  with  a  view"  to  show  w'hat 
the  biblical  criticisms  of  the  Bishop  are  really  w^orth.  I 
shall  only  add,  that  so  far  as  known,  no  solid  reason  can 
be  ofi^ered  for  confining  the  reference  of  the  relative 
which,  in  the  6th  verse,  to  either  part  of  the  verse  pre- 
ceding, and  much  less  for  excluding  tliat  part  with 
which,  alone,  the  relative  is  in  syntactical  concord. 

But  it  is  not,  as  stated  in  the  discussion,  deemed  mate- 
rial to  a  just  explanation  of  this  passage,  whether  if  is, 
or  is  not,  considered  as  containing  an  allusion  to  baptism? 
Suppose  it  to  be  conceded  that  it  does,  and  what  then? 
Are  we  conclude  that  we  cannot  be  saved  unless  by  the 
literal  washing,  or  wa'er  of  baptism?  So  says  his  holiness 
the  Bishop  of  Rome,  and  so  says  his  reverence  the 
Bishop  of  Bethany,  who  seems  to  extend  the  saving  efl^- 
cacy  of  this  outward  washing,  much  farther  than  his 
brother  of  Rome  has  ever  done.  But  if  his  view  of  this 
passage  be  correct,  must  we  not  then  understand  David 
literally,  when  he  prayed  that  the  Lord  would  purge 


228 


DEBATE  ON 


him  with  hyssop,  that  he  might  be  clean?  And  besides 
the  gross  absurdity  of  expeciiDg  guilt  to  be  purged  from 
tlie  conscience  and  pollution  from  the  soul  by  an  outward 
ceremonial  purgation,  would  it  not  make  this  humble 
penitent  guilty  of  presumption  in  praying  that  God  would 
do  that  for  him,  which  it  was  his  duty  to  do  for  himself, 
in  reliance  upon  God  for  his  blessing? 

Is  it  asked,  what  then  is  to  be  understood  by  "  the  trash- 
ing of  regeneration,"  and  especially  as  connected  with 
"  the  renewing  of  the  Holy  Ghost?"    An  answer  to  this 
question  will  very  naturally  connect  itself  with  a  brief  in- 
vestigation of  the  only  reason,  (so  far  as  I  can  now 
recollect,)  offered  by  Mr.  C.  in  the  discussion,  and  the 
only  one  contained  in  his  narrative,  for  the  position  that 
in  the  scriptural  import  of  the  term,  regeMeration  "  de- 
notes only  the  act  of  being  born,"  viz:  "  the  washing  of 
regeneration  is  contrasted  with,  or,  at  least  distinguished 
from,  the  renewal  of  the  Holy  Spirit."    Now  in  opposi- 
tion to  the  Bishop,  I  must  contend,  as  it  was  contended 
in  the  discussion,  that  there  is  no  contrast,  nor  yet  any 
substantial  difference  between  the  two  parts  of  this  pas- 
sage.   But  that  both  contain  a  description  of  the  same 
thing,  although  the  language  of  the  first  is  figurative,  in 
the  same  manner  that  the  blessing  of  the  removal  of  sin 
is  twice  sought  by  David  in  the  same  prayer:  "  Purge 
me  with  hyssop  and  I  shall  be  clean,  wash  me  and  I  shall 
be  whiter  than  snow."    Or  rather  that  the  first  is  a  des- 
cription of  the  commencement,  and  the  last  of  the  continu- 
ation of  thatgood  work  which  is  begun  and  performed,  in 
every  one  that  is  finally  saved,  "  until  the  day  of  Jesus 
Christ."    My  meaning  will,  perhaps,  be  more  distinctly 
expressed  upon  this  subject  in  the  language  of  Dr.  Scott, 
according  to  "  hom,  and  upon  the  supposition  that  in  this 
passage  is  contained  an  allusion  to  baptism,  we  are  to 
understand  by  "  the  washing  of  regeneration,  that  ne\T 
birth  of  the  Spirit,  of  which  the  laver  of  baptism  was  the 
sacramental  sign,  but  nothing  more.    Thiis  was  not  onl^ 
a  washing  of  the  heart  from  the  prevailing  love  and  pol- 
lution of  sin,  but  made  way  for  the  renewal  of  L:e  soultoth« 


CAMPBSLLISM. 


229 


divine  image  by  the  power  of  the  Holy  Spirit."  This 
surely  accords  with  the  tenor  of  parts  of  the  scriptures 
which  clearly  teach  us  that  the  person  thus  regenerated, 
or  born  of  God,  is  not  so  completely  or  perfectly  restored 
to  the  image  of  God,  or  that  holiness  which  is  necessary 
to  prepare  him  for  heaven,  as  not  daily  and  continually 
to  need  the  "  renewing  of  the  Holy  Ghost."  Thus  the 
apostle  urges  such  as  he  believed  to  be  partakers  of  this 
**  washing  of  regeneration,"  to  put  off  the  old  man  with 
his  deeds,  and  to  put  on  the  new  man,"  &:c.  And  again  he 
exiiorts  others  of  the  same  character  to  "  be  renewed  in 
the  spirit  of  their  mind."  And  we  moreover  hear  him 
declare  concerning  himself,  that  though  his  outward  man 
was  perishing,  his  "  inward  man"  was  "  renewed  day  by 
day."  In  what  manner?  By  his  own  exertions?  He 
tells  us  he  was  not  sufficient  of  himself  for  any  thing,  but 
tiiat  all  his  sufficiency  was  of  God.  It  was  then  no  doubt 
by  the  renewing,  or  the  sanctification  of  the  Spirit;  for 
regeneration  in  one  point  of  view  is  but  the  work  of 
sanctification  begun. 

But  it  was  in  the  discussion  yet  further  contended, 
that  Mr.  C's.  view  of  the  meaning  of  this  passage  involv- 
ed a  direct  contradiction,  both  of  its  Hteral  meaning  and 
the  leading  doctrine  or  truth  it  contained.  The  leading 
doctrine  it  contains  is  obviously  this,  that  we  are  not 
saved  by,  or  on  account  of,  any  works  or  deeds  of  right- 
eousness which  we  have  done  or  can  do;  but  only 
through  the  mercy  of  God,  exercised  or  extended  to  the 

fuilty,  through  the  mediation  of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ, 
y  whose  grace  alone  we  are  justified,  that  we  may  be 
made  heirs  according  to  the  hope  of  eternal  Hfe. 

Now,  however  evangelical  Christians  may  differ  with 
regard  to  the  proper  mode  and  subjects  of  baptism,  they 
are  all  agreed  as  to  its  nature  and  design.  No  one  of 
the  sects  of  which  this  class  is  composed,  hold  baptism  to 
be  at  all  essential  to  salvation,  much  less  do  they  view  the 
attendance  upon  this  ordinance  as  a  work  of  righteous- 
ness upon  which  any  reliance  can  be  placed,  in  the  great 
matter  of  justification  in  the  sight  of  God,  and  their  ac« 


230 


DEBATE  OK 


ceptance  with  him.  Whereas,  in  the  system  of  Mr.  C. 
this  is  evidently  not  only  a  work  of  righteousness,  but  the 
very  workj  (although  he  calls  it  an  act  of  faith,)  whereby 
alone,  according  to  his  teaching,  we  can  be  born  of  God, 
justified,  pardoned,  adopted,  sanctified  and  saved.  That 
it  is  in  his  system,  notwithstanding  his  calling  it  an  act  of 
faith,  a  work  of  justifying  righteousness,  is  evident  from 
the  circumstance,  that  it  exclusively  depends  upon  the 
will  and  the  act  of  the  person  who  v/ould  thereby  seek 
justification,  whether  he  obtained  the  desired  blessing.  It 
is  all  the  result  of  his  ow^n  act,  and  hence  Mr.  C.  uniform- 
ly speaks  of  "  the  act  of  being  born,"  &c.,  though  with  a 
view  to  avoid  the  evident  consequence  of  his  doctrine,  he 
informs  us  that  the  person  who  is  thus  born  of  water,  or 
born  of  God,  is  passive  at  the  moment  of  his  immersion, 
having  resigned  himself  into  the  hands  of  the  administra- 
tor of  the  ordinance.  What  I  have  said  is  still  more  evi- 
dent from  the  language  of  the  Bishop,  as  already  quoted 
from  his  Extra,  where  he  asserts,  (and,  according  to  his 
principles,  with  truth,)  that  "  it  is  no  difficult  matter  for 
believers  to  be  born  of  God,"  or,  in  other  words,  immer- 
sed, whereby,  if  his  system  be  true,  they  will  forthwith 
be  justified,  &c.  Need  there,  then,  any  thing  more  be 
said,  to  prove  that  his  exegesis  of  the  passage  flatiy  con- 
tradicts the  leading  truth  contained  in  it?  And  can  it, 
therefore,  be  a  just  explanation? 

But  Mr.  C.  contends,  as  we  have  seen,  that  the  scrip- 
tural import  of  the  term  regeneration,  is  "  only  the  act 
of  being  born."  Let  us  then  inquire,  how  this  will  com- 
port with  some  plain  passages  of  the  word  of  God,  re- 
lating to  this  subject.  The  first  to  which  the  reader  is 
now  referred,  is  one  that  has  been  already  cited  for  a 
different  purpose.  (1  Pet.  1:2,)  "  Being  born  again,  not 
of  corruptible  seed,  but  of  incorruptible,  by  the  word  of 
God,  which  Hveth  and  abideth  forever."  The  original 
word  here  translated  "  being  bom  again comes,  as  we 
have  seen,  from  a  verb  which  sometimes  means, 
especially  in  the  active  voice,  to  beget,  and  sometimes  to 
bring  forth,  and  which  Mr.  C.  contended,  ought  invaria- 


CAMPBELLISM. 


bly,  as  used  in  the  epistle  of  Peter  to  John,  to  have  been 
translated  to  beget,''  or  "  to  be  begotten^'  but  which  our 
translators  (as  it  is  believed  with  the  strictest  accuracy 
wlien  found  in  the  passive  voice,  or  when  a  passive 
participle,  as  it  is  in  this  passage)  have  rendered  "  to  be 
born,"  or  "  being  born."  It  is  not  however  my  intention 
here  to  resume  the  discussion  of  this  question,  nor  is  it 
necessary.  Mr.  C.  and  myself  are  sufficiently  agreed 
concerning  this  plain  and  important  passage,  for  our 
present  purpose,  which  is  to  show,  that  according  to  his 
own  version  and  exposition  of  its  meaning,  it  sweeps 
away  his  cobweb  theory  of  the  new  birth. 

By  the  inqorruptible  seed,  then,  Mr,  C.  understands  the 
word  of  God,  (Extra,  p.  29.)  And  ahhough  we  disa- 
gj-eed  concerning  the  correctness  of  our  version,  with 
regard  to  the  original  word  translated  "  being  born  again,'' 
we  are  both  agreed  that  it  means,  or  is  equivalent  to, 
"  having  been  regenerated,"  for  it  is  thus  rendered  in  his 
own  version.  Taking  the  passage  then  according  to 
that  rendering  which  he  has  adopted  and  approved 
in  his  new  version,  it  reads  thus:  "  Having  been  re- 
generated, not  of  corruptible  seed,  but  incorruptible, 
through  the  word  of  the  living  God,  which  remains  /or- 
ever.'"  Between  this  rendering,  and  that  contained  in 
our  standard  version,  there  is  no  material  or  important 
difference,  and  if  the  Bishop's  version  had  throughout 
been  as  correct  as  is  this  passage,  he  would  not  have  been, 
as  he  is  now  conceived  justly  to  be,  chargeable  with 
having  corrupted  the  word  of  God. 

Now  let  the  reader  be  especially  reminded,  that  Mr. 
C.  contends,  that  the  scriptural  import  of  the  term,  is 
"  only  the  act  of  being  born;"  that  a  person  only  be  born 
of  God  by  water,  or  through  immersion;  that  in  order 
to  his  being  born  of  God,  and  becoming  his  living  (and 
not  a  still-born)  child,  he  must  have  at  some  time  pre- 
viously been  begotten  of  God,  or,  which  according 
to  his  system  is  the  same  thing,  his  mind  must  be  "  im- 
pregnated by  the  Word."  Thus  we  see,  that  according 
to  the  Bishop's  theory,  "  the  Word"  is  the  cause  (ana 


DEBATE  OS 


it  seems  not  merely  the  instrumental,  but  the  efficient 
cause)  of  begetting  a  sinner,  or  impregnating  his  mind; 
but  not  in  any  sense  is  it  either  the  cause  or  the  means 
of  his  regeneration,  or  "  the  act  of  his  being  born;"  this 
can  only  be  accomplished  by  water,  or  be  performed 
through  immersion,  whereupon,  and  not  until  then,  he  is 
born  of  God,  or  born  again.  Now  let  us  inquire  if  this 
theory  is  not  swept  away,  by  this  passage  of  Peter's 
epistle,  taking  its  plain  meaning  from  the  new  version  of 
Mr.  C.  itself.  Here  the  apostle  speaks  of  such  as  had 
been  "  regenerated,"  (according  to  the  new  version,)  or 
"  born  again,"  (according  to  our  standard  version,)  the 
scriptural  import  of  which,  Mr.  C.  contends,  is  simply 
*'  the  act  of  being  born,"  not  by  water  or  through  im- 
mersion, whereby  alone  according  to  his  theory,  a  sinner 
can  become  the  subject  of  regeneration,  but  "  through 
the  word  of  the  living  God,  which  remains  forever  " 

A  passage  in  the  epistle  of  James,  in  like  manner 
proves  that  God  alone  is  the  efficient  cause  of  the  great 
change,  both  in  the  state  and  character  of  a  sinner,  when 
quickened  from  a  state  of  spiritual  death,  and  that  "  the 
word  of  truth,"  and  not  water,  is  the  instrument  whereby 
he  ordinarily,  at  least,  effects  such  a  change.  "  Of  his 
own  will,  (chap.  1:18,)  begat  he  us  with  the  word  of 
truth,  that  we  should  be  a  kind  of  first-fruits  of  his  crea- 
tures." The  original  word  here  translated  "  hegat^'  is 
not  precisely  the  same  wdth  that  rendered  in  a  similar 
instance,  (1  John  5:1,)  but  it  is  susceptible  of  the  same 
meaning,  and  there  can  be  no  doubt  of  the  correctness  of 
our  version.  It  moreover  corresponds  with  the  transla- 
tion of  Dr.  Macknight,  but  the  Bishop  has,  in  this  in- 
stance, thought  proper  to  use  the  word  "  impregnated** 
for  "  begotten,"  although,  as  has  been  shown,  and  as  it 
will  presently  further  appear,  he  considers  and  uses  these 
terms  in  reference  to  the  new  birth,  as  synonimous.  He 
is  not  so  blear-sighted  as  not  to  perceive  the  bearing  of 
these  passages  upon  his  theory,  and  therefore  in  his  Ex- 
tra, (p.  29,)  he  labors  not  only  to  evade  their  force,  but 
to  press  them  into  his  service.    "  In  being  born  natural- 


CAMPBELLISM. 


233 


ly,  (says  Mr.  C.,)  there  is  the  begetter,  and  that  which  is 
begotten.  These  are  not  tJie  same.  The  act  of  being 
born,  is  different  from  that  which  is  born.  Now,  (he 
adds,)  the  scriptures  carry  this  figure  through  every 
prominent  point  of  coincidence.  There  is  the  begetter. 
Of  his  own  will  he  has  begotten,  or  impregnated  ns, 
says  James  the  apostle.  By  the  word  of  timth,  as  the 
incorruptible  seed;  or  as  Peter  says.  We  are  bofn 
again,  not  from,  coiTuptible,  but  from  incorruptible  seed, 
the  word  of  which  endureth  fm  ever.  But  (he  continues) 
when  the  act  of  being  born  is  spoken  of,  then  the  w  ater 
is  introduced.  Hence,  before  we  come  into  the  king- 
dom, we  are  'born  of  water." 

The  above  is  a  just  specimen  of  the  Bishop's  logic,  as 
well  as  his  candor  and  regard  to  accuracy  in  quoting 
from  the  sacred  oracles.  Let  the  reader  understand  that 
the  part  of  the  above  extract  in  italics,  purports  to  be 
literally  quoted  from  the  epistles  of  James  and  Peter. 
Yet  it  will  not  only  be  perceived  that  both  quotations  are 
incorrect,  but  that  the  latter  so  changes  the  language  as 
to  keep  out  of  view  that  divine  agency  in  tlie  work  of  re- 
generation, which  the  passage  evidently  implies;  and 
represents  a  person  that  is  brought  into  tlie  kingdom  of 
the  grace  of  God,  as  born  ^\from  an  incorruptible  seed, 
the  word  of  truth,"  &c.  even  as  a  plant  spiings  from  a 
seed  possessed  of  the  germinating  principle,  according 
to  an  estabhshed  law  of  nature.  Whereas,  it  is  evident 
from  our  version,  which  in  this  respect  is  in  strict  ac- 
cordance with  the  original,  that  although  the  saints  ad- 
dressed by  the  apostle,  were  born  again  of  incorruptible 
seed,  it  was  "  by  the  ward  of  truth,"  and  this  was  the  in- 
strument or  instrumental  cause.  The  original  word 
translated  "  by,"  comes  from  a  Hebrew  word  which  sii?- 
nifies  to  drive  or  impel,  and  in  its  connection  as  here 
used,  must  lead  us  to  the  conclusion  that  "  the  word  of 
truth,"  and  not  water,  was  eitlier  the  efficient  or  instru- 
mental cause  of  their  having  been  regenerated,  or  born 
again.  But  as  it  would  be  equally  as  contradictory  to 
other  plain  passages  of  Cod's  word,  as  to  the  dictates  of 
21 


234 


CAMPBEtLISH. 


sound  reason,  to  conclude  the  word  of  God,  or  the  gospel 
alone,  when  not  accompanied  by  "  the  Holy  Ghost  sent 
down  from  heaven,"  to  be  the  efficient  cause  of  this 
great  change,  therefore  we  cannot  be  at  a  loss  to  deter- 
mine ^vhat  is  the  true  meaning  of  this  part  of  the  pas* 
sage. 


When  the  writer  of  the  preceding  narrative  had  near- 
ly completed  his  design,  he  was  summoned  by  the  voice 
of  disease  to  prepare  for  the  conflict  with  death,  that  he 
might  forever  rest  from  his  labors.  The  tongue  w^hieh 
had  so  eloquentl}-  defended  the  cause  of  justice,  and  last- 
ly the  sacred  cause  of  divine  truth,  was  now  about  to  be 
silent. — and  the  hand  which  had  sketched  the  previous 
account  of  tlie  discussion  with  the  champion  of  error^ 
was  now  about  to  rest  in  the  gi'ave,  "  till  the  resurrec- 
tion." But  it  is  evident,  that  Divine  Providence  had 
preserved  the  mortal  part  of  Dr.  Jennings  from  dissolu- 
tion, during  the  last  year  of  his  life,  so  long,  that  he  would 
be  enabled  to  write  out  all  the  essential  parts  of  the  de- 
bate, which  exhibits  in  its  trae  features,  a  dangerous  sys- 
tem of  delusion,  which  had  spread  throughout  many  parts 
of  the  land,  and  bid  fair  to  extend  its  blighting,  dividing 
influence,  through  many  branches  of  the  church,  exhaust- 
ing their  spirituality,  and  leaving  an  external  gospel,  cal- 
fed  ancient,  as  useless,  as  it  is  contrary  to  the  sacred 
oracles. 


CONCLUSION, 

MR.  C'S  WSINTERESTEDJTESS^ 

From  a  long  letter,  addressed  to  the  present  writer, 
by  his  uncle,  dated  Dec.  31,  1830,  a  few  days  after  the 
discussion,  the  reader  can  obtain  some  idea  of  the  points 


CAMPBELLISM. 


which  were  the  subjects  of  Mr.  Camphell's  concluding  re- 
marks. 

"  The  Moderators  adjudged  the  conclusion  to  belong 
of  right  to  Mr,  C,  who  exhausted  the  greater  part  of  his 
last  twenty  minutes,  not  in  reply  to  what  I  had  advanced 
from  sundry  important  parts  of  the  word  of  God,  but  in 
reading  his  own  book — his  Millenial  Harbinger,  Extra, 
No.  L  And  knowing  that  my  lips  would  be  sealed,  and 
that  no  reply  could  be  made  to  what  he  might  say,  the 
most  of  the  little  that  he  did  advance,  besides,  related  to 
his  own  great  disinterestedness,'^  &c. 

Says  the  writer  of  the  letter,  as  to  the  effect  of  this 
discussion,  it  does  not  become  me  to  speaL  I  trust  that 
my  motive  in  entering  into  this  contest,  was  not  to  seek 
my  own  things,  but  the  things  of  Jesus  Christ — not  to 
promote  my  own  interest,  or  honor,  or  fame;  but  the 
glory  of  God  and  the  cause  of  truth,  even  as  it  is  in  Jesus. 
Suffice  it  therefore  to  say,  that,  with  the  exception  of  the 
deluded  followers  of  Mr.  C,  the  voice  of  the  pubhc, 
including  not  only  the  great  mass  of  the  several  Christian 
denominations,  but  such  as  belong  to  no  church,  (of  these 
a  number  that  were  either  admirers  of  Mr.  CampbelPs 
talents,  or  strongly  inclined  to  embrace  his  sentiments,) 
is,  that  truth  has  triumphed." 

It  will  be  learned  from  the  above  extract,  that  Mr. 
Campbell  made  the  matter  of  his  own  ^  great  disinterest- 
edness," one  worthy  of  the  attention  of  the  assembly  in 
his  concluding  address.  The  pecuniary  concerns,  or 
personal  efforts  of  a  disputant,  were  not  only  a  poor  shift 
for  arguments  to  defend  the  ancient  gospel,"  pretended  to 
be  based  on  the  foundation  of  the  apostles;  but  rather 
delicate  subjects  for  a  modest  rnan  to  introduce,  when 
they  pertained  to  himself.  Since  he  has  made  an  exhi- 
bition of  his  disinterestedness  in  one  public  assembly,  if 
not  in  twany,  tViP  subject  maybe  considered  as  fairly  be- 
fore the  public,  for  examination. 

Let  us  suppose  the  case  of  an  ambitious  ecclesiastic, 
anxious  to  acquire  fam.e,  influence,  and  "  filthy  lucre,"  in 
this  country,  in  the  present  state  of  our  civil  and  reli^ioais 


236 


CAMPBELLISM. 


institutions.  And  in  what  way  would  he  most  likely 
succeed  in  his  purposes?  It  is  manifest,  at  once,  that  if 
he  remained,  during  life,  in  communion  with  one  of  the 
evangelical  branches  of  the  Church,  he  could  only  with 
an  uncommon  degree  of  talents,  united  to  great  industry 
and  management,  even  secure  himself  much  fame  or  in- 
fluence. For,  his  want  of  piety,  and  much  more  the 
principle  of  parity,  or  equal  rights,  usually  maintained, 
would  ever  be  obstacles  in  his  way  to  the  attainment  of 
the  two  first  objects.  And  the  greatest  sum  given  by 
any  congregation  as  a  compensation  for  ministering  in 
the  pastoral  office,  would  never  satisf}'  the  desire  of  one 
in  pursuit  of  the  riches  of  this  world.  By  such  a  man, 
bent  on  the  attainment  of  the  objects  specified,  some 
other  plan  would  necessarily  have  been  adopted,  than  the 
adhering  to  the  great  fundamental  doctrines  common  to 
Christian  denominations — some  other  plan,  than  that  of 
remaining  during  life  in  communion  with  an}^  one  of 
them.  To  one  possessing  a  knowledge  of  the  prejudices 
of  the  great  mass  of  the  pcpleof  this  country,  and  of  the 
aversion  to  the  humbling,  and,  (to  the  natural  man,)  dif- 
ficult terms  of  the  gospel,  it  would  appear  necessary  to 
strike  out  some  new  scheme,  giving  a  hope  of  salvation, 
or  unite  parts  of  different  systems,  so  as  to  make  one  plau- 
sible, easy  to  the  recipient,  and  not  running  counter  to 
the  views  which  natural  men  entertain  of  divine  subjects. 
In  order  to  secure  success  with  the  people,  who  are  only 
partially  settled  in  their  opinions,  or  entirely  unsettled,  (and 
the  mass  of  the  community  are  in  one  or  the  other  of 
these  states,)  it  would  be  necessary  that  this  new  scheme, 
or  old  one  modified,  should  have  the  appearance  of  being 
derived  directly  from  the  Bible,  and  as  being  the  belief 
of  the  apostles.  Any  one  in  the  pursuit  of  fame,  influence, 
and  wealth,  would  most  probably  meet  with  success,  t>o 
declaim  and  publish  much  asrainst  crt^^^^  and  oonfc^- 
^n^,  profcas  freedom  from  sectarianism;  for,  in 

consequence  of  the  improper  light  in  which  the  former  of 
these  things  is  viewed,  there  is  much  prejudice  in  the 
niinds  of  thousands,  of  which  advantage  could  be  easily 


237 


taken,  for  the  accomplishment  of  selfish  purposes. 
At  ail  age  like  this,  the  Press,  which  may  be  usefully  em- 
ployed in  promoting  evangelical  truth,  held  in  common 
by  various  denominations,  would  be  absolutely  necessary 
for  such  an  innovator,  as  is  supposed,  in  order  that  he 
might  be  successful.  Efforts  to  give  him  notoriety,  such 
as  public  disputations,  opposition  to  the  religious  usages 
against  which  prejudice  can  be  easily  excited, — ^ha- 
rangues, gasconading,  challenging  any  and  every  one 
to  raise  objections  to  his  -views,  would  aid  in  obtaining 
these  objects.  If  these  steps  were  taken  by  a  fluent,  au- 
dacious man,  they  would  make  an  impression  of  superi- 
ority, and  of  being  in  possession  of  the  truth,  on  persons 
of  ordinary  discernment,  very  favorable  to  the  promotion 
•of  self-interest.  If  any  reader  knows  of  a  course,  ab- 
stractly considered,  more  likely  to  be  successful  to  an 
ambitious  man,  it  is  more  than  the  writer  does.  / 
speak  as  unto  wise  men,  judge  ye  what  I  say. 

Some  facts  from  the  history  of  Mr,  Campbell,  con* 
nected  with  his  manner  of  speaking  and  writing,  wiM 
enable  the  reader  to  know  how  far,  the  case  supposed,  is 
Mr.  C.'s — how  far  he  is  entitled  to  his  claims  of  disinter- 
estedness. 

After  Mr.  C.  had  been  aided  by  congregations  in  con- 
nection with  branches  of  the  Presbyterian  church,  he  was 
discovered  to  be  a  young  man  of  so  much  self-impor- 
tance, that  he  was  not  encouraged  in  his  efforts.  He  was 
licensed  by  his  father,  and  eventually  became  connected 
with  the  Regular  Baptist  church,  as  a  preacher  of  the 
gospel.  That  respectable  body,  perhaps  not  then  fully 
acquainted  with  him,  supposed  that  Presbyterians  had 
paid  the  passage  over  the  Atlantic  of  a  prodigy  of  great- 
ness, whom  they  would  cherish,  but  which  they  soon 
found  to  be  a  being  containing  the  'poison  of  error,  and 
the  disposition  to  hiss  at  long  established  and  scriptural 
usages;  such  as  the  obligation  of  obedience  to  the  mc/ral 
law,  or  ten  commandments,  under  the  New  Testament 
dispensation.    It  will  enable  us  to  arrive  at  some  know- 

♦  21 


CAMPBELLISM. 


ledge  of  Mr.  Ca'Tipbell's  disinteredness,  to  quote  a  few 
sentences  from  a  late  Baptist  wriier,  who  remarks, 

"  It  was  soon  perceived  by  some,  that  he  not  only  ap- 
probated those  things  which  well  instructed  Baptists  re^ 
garded  as  evils,  but  that  an  attack  was  to  be  made  upon 
some  of  the  vital  principles  of  the  society.  It  has  proved 
in  tlie  end,  that  nol  reformation  h\i\.  revolution,  is  what  he 
aims  at  The  whole  system  heretofore  maintained  by 
Baptists,  must  give  place  to  an  entire  new  order  of 
things." 

Daring  part,  or  the  whole  of  the  time  in  which  j\fr.  C. 
was  in  connection  with  the  Regular  Baptists,  he  publish- 
ed the  Christian  Baptist."  In  that  work,  he  began  to 
divulge  his  reforming  sentiments,  as  well  as  occasionally 
in  newspapers,  conversations,  and  sermons — to  turn  the 
minds  of  some  from  the  truth,  and  to  lay  the  foundation 
for  a  new  sect.  In  it  he  began  to  reprint  the  slanderous 
stories,  tending  to  check  the  efforts  to  evangelize  the 
heathen,  and  to  stigmatize  the  character  of  those  engaged 
in  them.  Amongst  other  things  taken  from  semi-infidel, 
and  Universalist  publications,  he  inserted  the  tale,  which 
proved  to  be  utterly  false,  concerning  that  truly  Chris- 
tian Baptist  missionary,  and  heroine  in  her  Master's 
cause,  Mrs.  Judson. 

He  likewise  commenced  his  attacks  in  his  publication, 
as  well  as  in  his  harangues,  on  Presbyterians,  without 
any  provocation  from  tiiem,  who  had  been  his  benefac- 
tors, and  to  turn  his  hand  against  every  man  who  did  not 
enter  into  his  views;  which  statements,  will  be  confiniied 
by  an  examination  of  the  page?  of  the  "  Baptist."  When 
he  appeared  to  have  obtained  the  applause  of  a  considera- 
ble part  of  the  Baptist,  as  well  as  some  of  other  denomin- 
ations, and  some  of  every  class,  he  became  bolder  and 
]>older  in  proclaiming  his  "  ancient  gospel,"  which  has 
Droved  itself  to  be,  but  a  compound  of  parts  of  Arianism, 
i.'niiarianism,  Popery,  and  SaudornAnism,  with  other 
ipi^r^'Aientsh.^Ymg  an  afmity  to  these  ancient  nostrums, 
all  of  which  are  labeled.  Gospel    This  course  eventua- 


CAMPBELLLISM. 


230 


ted,  not  in  a  disinterested  separation  from  the  Regular 
Baptists,  for  Mr.  C.  having  prepared  the  way,  carried 
with  him  a  portion  of  that  body,  as  the  spoils  of  his  fac- 
tious conduct.  He  rent  many  churches  in  the  west,  and 
southwest,  set  at  variance  many  ministers  and  people  that 
had  formerly  lived  in  harmony,  and  all,  as  he  would  have 
us  believe,  for  the  disinterested  purpose  of  propagating 
the  "  ancient  gospel."  But  having  no  doubt  reaped  a  re- 
ward from  his  "  Christian  Baptist,"  from  the  sale  of  hig 
pretended  triumphant  debates,  with  Mr.  Walker,  and 
subsequently  with  Mr.  M'Calla,  he  set  his  snares  for 
more  game,  and  turned  his  "  Christian  Baptist"  into  a 
Millennial  Harbinger,"  endeavoring  to  claim  for  it 
greater  patronage  as  the  precursor  of  the  Millenium. 
He  issued  a  new  edition  of  his  per-version  of  the  New 
Testament,  for  which  he  had  helped  to  obtain  a  demand, 
by  publishing  fabrications,  similar  to  the  one  exposed  in 
the  former  part  of  this  book,  relative  to  the  American 
Bible  Society.  He  issued  supplies  of  his  Hymn  Book,  in 
the  preface  to  which  he  condemns  all  collections  of 
Hymns  but  his  own, — and  all  from  similar  disinterested- 
ness. He  undertook  new  journeys,  with  something,  no 
doubt,  of  the  disinterestedness  of  a  Pharisee,  who  will 
travel  "  over  land  and  sea,  to  make  one  proselyte."  His 
arrival,  in  some  instances,  was  announced  by  hand-bills 
or  advertisements,  so  that  the  curiosity  of  the  people 
might  be  aroused  to  hear  lectures,  adapted  to  the  feel- 
ings of  human  nature,  and  in  many  particulars,  to  the 
views  of  human  reason.  In  these  harangues,  an  easy 
way  to  be  saved  w^as  prescribed  to  men,  nearly  all  of 
whom  are  willing  to  quiet  their  fears  about  futurity,  by 
some  profession  of  Christianity. — To  repent,  (according 
to  Mr.  C.)  is  to  reform;  to  have  faith  unto  salvation,  is  to 
believe  the  historical  facts  of  the  Bible;  to  be  born  again, 
is  to  be  immersed.  In  other  words,  to  secure  heaven,  is 
to  be  a  Campbellite,  in  spirit  and  in  belief,  and  to  be- 
•  come  one  of  the  most  exclusive  sectarians.  To  seems 
more  certain  attention  to  his  public  exhibitions,  by  giv- 
ing them  the  appearance  of  novelty,  and  to  bring  iaat© 


CAMPBELLISM. 


disrepute  the  common  mode  of  textuary  preaching,  or 
sermonizing,  the  Reformer  calls  his  addresses  o/y/^/ows  or 
lectures.  This  distinction  between  his  discourses,  and 
those  of  other  religious  teachers,  is  one  without  any  ma- 
terial difterence,  and  is  evidently  made,  to  enable  him, 
with  some  apparent  consistency,  to  teach  the  sentiment 
found  in  his  monthly  publication,  that  al/  the  preaching 
that  is  necessary  since  the  days  of  the  apostles^  is  to  undo 
V'hat  has  been  done.  And  also,  to  give  himself  all  op- 
portunity to  endeavor  to  undo,  by  what  he  calls  orations 
or  lectures,  without  being  chargeable  with  preaching. 
Those  who  have  heard  his  lectures,  know,  that  he  enters 
into  an  examination  of  the  Sacred  Scriptures,  and  en- 
forces, by  sophistical  arguments,  his  tieics  on  his  audi- 
tors, even  more  than,  those  who  have  received  regular 
ordination,  do  the  truth.  If  there  is  a  difference  be- 
tween his  orations  and  the  sermons  of  other  men,  it  is 
chiefly  in  this,  that  Mr.  C.  endeavors  to  present  the  views 
of  other  denominations  in  a  disgusting  light,  and  treats 
sacred  truth  sometimes  with  shocking  irreverence, 
and  is  destitute  of  that  solemnity  which  usually  attends 
a  minister  of  the  gospel,  laboring  merely  to  do  good  to 
his  fellow  creatures,  and  to  glorify  God. 

The  fluency  and  boldness  which  Mr.  C.  exhibits  in 
his  pubhc  harangues,  has  acquired  for  him  a  reputation 
for  smartness,  which  is  scarcely  his  due,  especially  when 
it  is  known  to  be  the  fact,  that  he  repeats  his  lectures  on 
the  same  topics  at  difierent  places,  until  he  has  obtained 
a  readiness  of  speech  which  is  not  usual,  except  in  cases 
where  frequency  of  repetition,  gives  the  speaker  the  op- 
portunity of  impressing  the  less  discerning  part  of  his 
audience,  with  the  idea  of  his  great  superiority.  Wheth- 
er to  this  practice  of  repeating  the  same  discourse,  as 
well  as  to  other  schemes,  which  have  been  and  will  be 
mentioned,  is  to  be  attributed  the  fact,  that  Mr.  C.  has 
acquired  fame  and  influence,  I  leave  the  reader  to  judge. 

Thousands  who  have  heard  him,  know  with  what  ve- 
hemency  of  manner,  and  venom  of  matter,  he  is  accus- 
tomed to  assail  the  ministry,  the  doctrines  and  usages  of 


CAMPBELLISM. 


241 


other  denominations.  He  represents  their  nainisters  as 
hirelings,  the  people  as  deceived  and  fleeced  by  them, 
and  himself  as  receiving  little  or  no  reward  for  his 
services.  By  pursuing  this  course,  he  takes  advantage 
of  the  avaricious  feelings  of  men,  and  excites  a  dislike  to 
the  humbling  doctrines  of  the  gospel  of  Jesus  Christ,  and 
conceals  the  truth,  that  he  is  rewarded;  though  it  may 
not  be  directly,  it  is  done  indirectly,  and  vastly  more 
abundantly  than  the  reward  of  regularly  ordained  cler- 
gAinen.  By  going  through  the  country,  casting  rcf" 
proach  upon  ministers,  whose  forefathers  assisted  in 
laying  the  foundation  of  liberty  and  free  toleration  in 
religion  in  this  country,  and  who,  themselves,  have  been 
the  ujiiform  patrons  of  learning,  lil)erty,  and  rights  of 
conscience,  as  well  as  promoters  of  true  religion,  he 
prepares  the  minds  of  his  deluded  followers,  to  acknow- 
ledge himself,  as  ordy  worthy  of  patronage.  By  traveling 
to  and  fro,  throwing  stones  at  the  vessels  in  all  the  regu- 
lar sanctuaries,  he  obtains  a  sale  for  his  n  ares — for  his 
enormously  dear,  and  dangerously  bought  works,  and 
publications.  The  more  he  can  persuade  people  to 
forsake  their  former  ministers  and  churches,  the 
more  profit  results  to  him,  which  is  alread}^  so  great, 
that  he  need^  no  salary  as  a  hireling  in  his  destruc- 
tive work.  He  nov/  possesses  more  wealth,  than  ten,  or 
perhaps  twenty,  of  some  of  the  Presbyterian  ministers, 
whom  he  makes  the  chief  butt  of  his  rough  satire.  Hav- 
ing the  advantage  of  zealous  agents,  who  disseminate 
his  writings  with  the  utmosi  diligence,  not  onl}'  amongst 
their  own  sect,  (as  other  denominations  do  amongst 
theirs,)  but  amongst  all  classes,  some  of  whom,  we  are 
credibly  informed,  are  of  every  grade  in  scepticism: 
besides,  being  Postmaster,  and  having  a  Post  Office  at 
his  own  dwelling,  in  a  retired  part  of  the  country,  he 
can  embrace  ihe  franh'jig  privilege,  and  can,  with  great 
facility  and  success,  send  abroad  his  communications, 
and  propagate  his  *'  ancient  gospel"  for  the  sake  of 
'*  filthy  lucre." 


342 


CAMPBELLISM. 


It  is  also  worthy  of  remark,  as  part  of  the  Bishop's 
disinterested  course,  that  though  accustomed  to  censure 
other  individuals  with  the  utmost  severity,  when  they, 
after  much  forbearance,  and  injury  received  at  his 
hands,  attempt,  in  self-defence,  and  for  future  security, 
an  exposure  of  him  and  his  d  octrines,  he,  like  an  adroit 
actor  who  plays  upon  the  sympathies  of  his  auditors,  com- 
mences the  cry  of  persfcation  and  proscription.  And 
thus,  by  various  arts,  he  has  retained  in  many  places  his 
hold,  and  increased  his  supporters;  but  other  persons 
have  seen,  and  are  discovering  the  real  man,  through 
the  veil  of  his  pretensions,  and  are  determined  not  to  be 
beguiled  to  ruin,  nor  aid  in  promoting  the  prevalence  of 
sentiments,  dangerous  to  immortal  beings.  I  would 
indulge  the  hope,  that  even  Mr.  Campbell,  learning  by 
experience  that  the  road  to  fame,  influence,  and  wealth, 
upon  the  ruins  of  other  denominations,  is  filled  with 
thorns — that  feeling  remorse  of  conscience — and  wit- 
nessing the  blasting  and  dividing  influence  of  his  plans 
on  the  churches,  may  yet  think  of  retracing  his  steps, 
and  coming  to  true  repentance,  and  to  a  saving  know- 
ledge of  Jesus  Christ,  and  have,  as  "  he  that  believeth 
hath,  the  witness  in  himeelf*  of  forgiveness. 

EDITOR. 


APPENDIX, 


Note  A. — page  33. 

H&.  C.'a  CHRISHAN  EJtPERIENCE — HIS  ADVICE  TO  AN  ANX10U9  :iNaUIltES 

ON  RELIGION. 

After  having  written  tlie  account  of  the  first  envening*s  debate  with 
Mr.  C.  I  discovered  that  he  has  favored  the  world  with  a  publication 
of  what  he  is  pleased  to  call  his  "Christian  experience."    In  his  dis- 
sertation on  conscience,  No.  7,  contained  in  the  3d  vol.  of  his  Christian 
Baptist,  he  informs  his  readers,  that  he  well  remembers  "  what  pains 
and  conflicts"  he  endured  under  fearful  apprehension  that  his  convic- 
tions and  his  sorrows  for  sin  were  not  deep  enough.    And  if  we  may 
form  a  judgment  from  his  own  statement,  it  would  seem  that  Mr.  C. 
was,  at  least  in  some  measure,  convinced  of  the  sinfulness,  as  well  as 
helplessness  of  his  nature ;  and  that  he  then  "  did  wish"  for  the  opera- 
tion of  the  Spirit  of  God  upon  his  soul,  though  like  others  in  the  same 
situation  with  himself,  destitute  of  spiritual  discernment,  he  seems  to 
'have  entertained  very  unjust  and  unscriptural  notions  of  that  "  good 
work"  which  God  not  only  begins  in  all  his  people,  but  performs  until 
tlie  day  of  Jesus  Christ.    He  ftirther  informs  his  readers  that  although 
he  feared  that  he  had  not  sufficiently  found  the  depravity  of  his  heart, 
and  had  not  yet  proved  that  he  was  utterly  witliout  strength,  yet  he 
sometimes  thought  that  he  felt  as  sensibly  as  he  felt  the  ground  under 
his  feet,  that  he  had  gone  just  as  far  as  human  nature  could  go  without 
supernatural  aid,  and  that  one  step  more  would  place  him  safe  among 
the  regenerated  of  the  tord;  and  yet  heaven  refused  its  aid.    That  he 
found  no  comfort  in  all  the  declarations  of  the  gospel,  because  he  want, 
ed  one  thing  to  enable  him  to  appropriate  them  to  himself.  Lacking 
this,  he  could  only  envy  the  happy  favorites  of  heaven  who  enjoyed  it« 
and  all  his  refuge  was  in  a  faint  hope  that  he  one  day  might  receive  that 
aid,  which  would  place  his  "  feet  upon  the  Rock."    Having  proceeded 
thus  far  in  the  dissertation  before  alluded  to,  Mr.  C.  abruptly  terminated 
tlie  narrative  of  his  "  Christian  experience"  without  having  informed 
his  readers  how  he  made  his  escape  from  "  the  slough  of  despond," 
into  which  he  had  fallen.    In  consequence  of  which,  a  person  who 
seems  to  have  been  deeply  concerned  about  the  state  of  his  soul— one  who 
viewed  "  himself  out  of  the  ark  of  safety;"  but  "  whose  supreme  de- 
sire," according  to  his  own  language,  was  "  to  know  the  truth  as  it  is  in 
Jesus,"  addressed  "  to  the  Editor  of  the  Christian  Baptist,"  a  very  in- 
teresting letter.    In  this  letter,  he  informed  Mr.  C,  that  he  regarded 
him  "  as  a  teacher  in  Israel,"  in  whom  it  is  but  too  evident  he  placed 
the  most  implicit  confidence;  he  requested  his  aid  in  his  researches' 
after  truth;  and  he  moreover  declared,  that  he  made  the  application 
with  the  strongest  assurance  of  being  satisfactorily  answered,  as  the 
subject  upon  which  he  solicited  information  once  operated  upon  the 
mind  of  Mr.  C.  precisely  as  it  then  did  on  that  of  the  writer  of  the  letter. 

In  giving  the  sequel  of  his  Christian  experience,  (as  Mr.  C.  professes 
to  do,)  by  way  of  reply  to  a  letter  requesting  information  relating  to  a 


APPENDIX. 


subject  of  stick  absorbing  interest,  we  may  reasonably  conclude,  that  a 
true  and  faithful  "  teacher  in  Israel,"  who  had  himself  been  taug-ht  of 
God,  would  have  said  to  his  anxious  correspondent,  as  did  the  Psalmist 
to  all  those  that  feared  the  Lord :  "  Come  and  hear,  and  I  will  declare 
what  he  hath  done  for  my  soul."  The  one  thing  which  I  once  fell 
myself  so  much  in  need  of,  I  humbly  hope  I  have  obtained.  When  tho 
sorrows  of  death  compassed  me,  and  the  pains  of  hell  got  hold  upon  m&, 
and  I  found  trouble  and  sorrow;  then  called  I  upon  the  name  of  tho 
Lord.  O  Lord,  I  beseech  thee,  deliver  my  soul.  Thus  I  was  brought 
low,  but  the  Lord  helped  me.  For  I  waited  patiently,  (but  with  strong 
desires,  and  earnest  cries,  and  flowing  tears,)  for  the  Lord,  and  he  in- 
clined unto  me  and  heard  my  cry.  He  brought  me  up,  also,  out  of  a 
horrible  pit,  out  of  the  miry  clay,  and  set  my  feet  upon  a  Rock.  And 
he  hath  put  a  new  song  in  my  mouth,  even  praise  unto  our  God.  Ma^ 
ny  shall  see  it,  and  fear,  and  trust  in  the  Lord.  For  God,  who  com- 
manded the  light  to  shine  out  of  darkness,  hath  shined  into  my  heart, 
to  give  the  light  of  the  knowledge  of  the  glory  of  God  in  the  face  of 
Jesus  Christ.  Thus  the  God  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  the  Father  of 
glory,  has,  (as  I  humbly  trust,)  given  unto  me  the  spirit  of  wisdom  and 
revelation  in  the  knowledge  of  him:  the  eyes  of  my  understanding 
having  been  enlightened;  that  I  might  know  what  is  the  hopeofhia 
calling,  and  what  the  riches  of  the  glory  of  his  inheritance  in  the  saints? 
and  what  is  the  exceeding  greatness  of  his  power  to  us-ward  who  be- 
lieve, according  to  the  working  of  his  mighty  power  which  he  wrought 
in  Christ,  when  he  raised  him  from  the  dead;  therefore  I  have  believed 
the  word  which  God  has  given  of  his  Son,  not  merely  "  hy  my  own  ef- 
forts''''— not  merely  by  reading  and  reflection  as  you  have  learned,  and 
believe  that  Rome  is  situated  on  the  Tiber,  (a  belief  that  will  produce 
no  change  in  your  moral  or  spiritual  condition,)  but  I  have  "  believed 
through  grace" — believed  with  the  heart  unto  righteousness,  and  I  hope 
to  the  saving  of  the  soul.  For  after  that  I  thus  through  grace  believed, 
I  was  sealed  with  the  Holy  Spirit  of  promise,  which  is  the  earnest  of  ray 
inlieritance  until  the  redemption  of  my  purchased  possession,  unto  tha 
praise  of  his  glory.  So  that  now  having  the  Spirit  of  God  to  bear  wit- 
ness with  my  own  Spirit  that  I  am  a  child  of  God,  I  am  habitually  dis- 
posed,  in  shewing  forth  the  praises  of  him  who  hath  brought  me  out  of 
darkness  into  his  marvellous  light,  having  delivered  me  from  the  powex 
of  darkness,  and  translated  me  into  the  kingdom  of  his  dear  Son,  to 
adopt  the  language  of  the  great  and  highly  favored  apostle  of  the  Gen- 
tiles: "  Now  unto  him  that  is  able  to  do  exceeding  abundantly  above  all 
that  we  ask  or  think,  according  to  the  power  that  worketh  in  us — unto 
him  be  glory  in  the  church  by  Christ  Jesus,  throughout  all  ages,  world 
without  end.  Amen." 

Such,  it  is  believed,  would  have  been  truly  a  Christian  experieiKse, 
corresponding  with  the  experience  of  the  saints  of  God  as  recorded  in 
his  word — and  such  a  Christian  experience  given  by  way  of  reply  to 
the  letter  of  his  anxious  correspondent,  might,  through  the  blessing  of 
God,  and  probably  would  have  been,  the  means  of  convincing  him  that 
the  "  one  thing  which  he  lacked"  in  order  to  his  becoming  a  Christian, 
not  merely  in  name,  but  in  truth,  must  be  sought  for,  and  could  only 
be  obtained,  not  through  the  aid  or  instruction  of  Mr.  C.,  but  from  God 
who  alone  can  place  the  sliding  feet  of  a  poor  sinner,  in  danger  of  falling 
into  hell,  "  upon  the  Rock"  of  ages. 


APPENDIX. 


245 


Instead  of  giving  such  an  experience  as  the  foreg^nng,  of  which  it  is 
deemed  no  breach  of  charaity  to  conchide  Mr.  C.  to  have  been  destitute, 
in  his  reply  to  his  correspondent,  he  informs  him  that  though  to  him  it 
might  appear  that  "  his  experience  broke  off  too  abrubtly,"  lor  the  case 
of  his  correspondent,  still,  "  for  his  object  at  that  time,  which  was  to 
show,  that  every  man'' s  experience  corresponded  withhis  religions  ednca- 
Hon,  it  was  conducted  sufficiently  far  to  demonstrate  the  point  in 
hand."  But  in  compliance  with  the  request  of  the  anxious  inquirer 
after  truth,"  he  proceeds  to  give  the  sequel  of  his  religious  experience, 
in  the  progress  of  which  he  informs  his  corrcspondeVit  that  lie  "  rested 
for  a  while  on  the  bare  probability,  or  possibility,  that  divine  aid  would 
come  to"  his  relief.  But  he  afterwards  declares  he  "  was  all  the  while 
looking  for  an  aid  which  was  never  promised,  and  expecting  an  inter- 
position, without  which"  he  was  taught  he  could  derive  no  assurance  of 
the  favor  of  God.  Notwithstanding  Mr.  C.  afterwjwrds  speaks  of  divine 
aid  having  been  vouchsafed,  but  in  a  way  which  he  had  not  expected. 
He  "had  looked  for  it,  (he  says,)  independent  of  all  the  grace  revealed 
in  the  gospel,  but  found  it  inseparably  connected  therewith."  That  is,  if 
he  he  not  greatly  misunderstood,  he  found  it  exclusively  in  the  written 
word,  or  revelation  of  the  gospel,  without  any  inward  revelation  of  the 
Spirit  of  God,  without  having,  when  dead  in  sins,  been  quickened  to- 
gether with  Christ,  by  his  Spirit.  I  say  by  his  Spirit,  for  he  himself 
informs  us,  (John  6:  63,)  "  It  is  the  Spirit  that  quickeneth."  That  no 
injustice  is  done  to  Mr.  C.  by  this  construction  or  explanation  of  the 
"  divine  aid"  which  he  supposed  was  vouchsafed  in  his  case,  will  be 
evident  from  the  bold,  not  to  say  impious  assertion  contained  in  the 
sequel  of  his  reply  to  his  correspondent :  "  It  is  one  of  Ihe  monstrous 
abortions  of  a  purblind  theology,  for  any  human  being  to  be  wishing  for 
spiritual  aid  to  be  born  again.  Transier  such  an  idea  to  the  first  birth, 
and  to  what  an  absurdity  are  we  reducedl"  This  article  of  Mr.  Camp- 
bell's creed,  not  only  shows  how  inadequate,  or  rather  unscriptural  and 
absurd  are  his  views  of  the  new  or  second  birth,  but  that  he  entirely 
excludes  the  wwk  of  the  Spirit  of  God,  whereby  this  great  ciiange  in  the 
character  and  condition  of  a  sinner  is  effected,  so  that  he  is  said  to  be  » 
new  creature,  having  been  created  in  Christ  Jesus  unto  good  works. 
And  that  too  notwithstanding  it  is  evident  from  the  language  of  God's 
word,  that  to  be  born  again,  to  be  born  of  God,  and  to  he  horn  of  the 
Spirit,  is  the  same  thing. 

But  what  may  seem  strange,  and  even  to  involve  a  contradiction  in 
the  view  of  some,  is,  that  Mr.  C.  in  the  narrative  of  his  supposed  Chris- 
tian experience,  nevertheless  informs  his  correspondent,  that  his  "  peace 
and  hope  and  joy  arises  from  a  firm  persuasion  that  in  the  Lord  Jesus, 
through  the  love  of  God,  and  the  grace  of  the  Holy  Spirit,"  he  "  has  ac- 
ceptance," and  is  "  adopted  into  the  family  of  God" — and  that  of  this  he 
has  "  assurance  from  the  Spirit  of  adoption"  winch  he  has  received, and 
from  his  "  love  to  all  the  saints."  If  he  lia  d  said  no  more  than  tiiis  upon 
the  subject  of  his  religious  experience,  some  niight  have  been  ready  to 
conclude  that  in  relation  to  that  important  matter,  there  is,  or  at  least 
was  not,  (A.  D.  1827,  when  he  penned  his  oxporiencc,  whatever  chan- 
ges of  sentiment  he  may  since  have  undergone,)  any  substantial  differ- 
ence between  Mr.  C.  and  any  evangelical  or  orthotlox  C'hristian.  Such, 
however,  it  is  believed,  is  far  from  being  the  fact.  What  are  his  ideas 
22 


APPENDIX, 


or  opinions  concev  sing  the  Holy  Spirit,  I  cannot  certainly  telT,  tts  heftx? 
never  condescended  to  favor  the  vi  orld  with  the  article  of  his  creed  in 
relation  to  tliis  important  subject;  but  holds  his  sentiments  in  this  par- 
ticular, to  all  intents  and  purposes,  as  private  jjroperty.  But  that  Mr.  C. 
admits  among  the  articles  of  his  creed,  (held  as  prirate  property)  the 
divinity  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  or  liis  coequality  and  unity  with  the  Father 
and  his  only  begotten  Son — or,  in  other  words  that  he  believes  this  third 
person  of  the  Godhead,  to  be  that  "  eternal  Spirit"  tlnough  whom  Christ 
"  offered  himself  once  for  all  \vithout  spot  unto  God,"  it  is  supposed  is 
more  than  doubtful;  inasmuch  as  Arians  and  Unitarians,  and  indeed  all^ 
by  whatever  name  they  Miay  choose  to  be  distinguished,  who  deny  the 
divinity  or  coequality  of  the  Son  of  God  with  the  Father,  (as  does  Mr. 
C.,)  also  deny  the  divinity  and  coequality  of  the  Holy  Spirit- 
But  be  that  as  it  may,  it  is  evident  from  the  whole  tenor  of  his  reply- 
to  his  correspondent,  that,  (in  A.  D.  1827,)  hy  the  gracb  of  the  Holy 
Spirit,  he  meant  no  more  tlian  that  inspiration  whereby  we  are  favored 
with  the  written  tcord,  or  revealed  will  of  God;  and  by  the  spirit  of  adop- 
tion, v/hich  he  believes  he  has  received,  he  does  not  me-an  the'  Holy  Spirit 
of  God,  but  a  filial  disposition  of  mind,  whereby  he  is  inclined  to  cry 
Abba,  Father.  This  will  more  clearly  appear  in  that  part  of  this  ac- 
count of  the  debate,  v/hich  notices  his  version  of  the  New  Testament. 
The  Spirit  of  adoption,  then^  which  Mr.C.  has  received,  is  very  different 
from  that  spoken  of  by  the  apostle,  as  having  been  received  by  the  be- 
lieving Romans,  (Rom.  8:15,)  and  also  by  the  Galatians,  (Gal.  10:6,)  to 
whom  he  declares:  '"And  because  ye  are  sons,  God  hath  sent  forth  the 
Spirit  of  his  Son  into  your  hearts^  crying,  Ahha,  Father  " 

After  having  given  to  his  correspondent  a  "  disclosure  of  *  his  '*  expe- 
rience," he  adds,  among  other  things,  the  following  opinions  concerning 
faith,  which  would  seem  evidently  a  deduction  from  such  experience  :. 
"  If  by  your  '^  ozcn  efforts^  yea  can  believe  that  Jesus  is  the  Messiah,  the 
Son  of  God — by  your  '^own  efforts''  you  can  believe  in  him  to  the  saving 
^f  your  soul.  That  is  '  saving  fmth,''  (for  there  is  but  '  one  faith,') 
wJiich  purifies  tlie  heart  and  works  by  love."  That  is,  if  his  corres- 
pondent could,  by  his  own  efforts,  believe  that  Jesus  is  the  Messiah,. 
&.C.,  after  the  same  manner  that  he  believed  that  Rome  was  situated  on 
the  Tiber,  that  is  saving  faith,  y^hich  purifies  the  heart!!*  May  God. 
of  his  infinite  mercy  and  goodness,  deliver  an  anxious  inquirer  after 
truth,  from  the  dangerous  influence  of  such  ghostly  advisers  as  Mr.  A. 
Campbell  I 

Note  B. — page  38. 
That  Mr.  C.  belonged  to  this  class  in  Ireland,  I  will  not  undertake 
to  say.  It  is  nevertheless  a  fact  susceptible  of  proof,  if  it  should  be 
denied,  that  his  family,  or  to  speak  with  more  precision,  his  father's 
family,  when  they  emigrated,  or  at  least,  when  they  came  to  West- 
ern Pennsylvania  were  in  circumstances  so  straitened,  that  contri- 
butions were  mads  by  congregations  belonging  to  different  Branches 
of  the  Presbyterian  chm-ch,  for  their  relief.  This  fact,  however,  is 
not^  mentioned  by  way  of  casting  any  reproach  upon  I\Ir.  C.  or  his 

■  *  If  thit  doctrine  be  true,  a  sinner,  however  he  may  feel  oppressed 
imder  a  sense  ox'the  moral  pollution  and  obliquity  of  his  nature,  has  no 
need  to  pray,  as  did  David:  "Create  in  me  a  clean  hearty. and  renew 
a  right  Spirit  within  me." 


ATPEN^DIX, 


247 


family,  because  he  or  they  were  poor.  Far  from  it.  Whilst  a  rich 
man  is  not  to  be  accounted  a  sinner,  simply  because  he  is  in  pos- 
session of  riches,  so  a  man  is  not  the  less  worthy  of  respect  and  es- 
teem, merely  because  he  is  poor.  Besides,  we  are  informed  by  the 
most  undoubted  authority,  that  it  is  for  the  most  part  among  this 
class,  that  we  are  to  expect  to  jfind  the  true  people  of  God.  The 
father  of  Mr.  C.  was  at  the  time  of  emigration  from  Ireland,  a  Pres. 
byterian  minister,  and  wo  know,  notwithstanding  all  the  outcry 
which  ills  son  has,  through  a  series  of  years,  raised  against  the  min- 
isters of  the  gospel  belonging  to  this  denomination,  that  but  few  of 
them  indeed,  at  least  in  these  United  States,  are  rich, — as  he  is  said 
and  believed  now  to  be.  The  great  majority  of  them  have  but  the 
means,  with  great  frugality,  of  obtaining  the  common  comforts  of 
life,  and  of  maintaining  a  decency  of  apparel,  corresponding  to  the 
nature  of  their  office,  and  to  enable  them  to  have  access  to  persons 
of  wealth  to  do  them  good. 

But  the  object  of  mentioning  the  fact  stated  above,  is  with  a  view 
to  expose  the  arrogance,  as  well  as  ingratitude  of  Mr.  C.  He  would 
fain  have  it  believed  that  in  emigrating  to  this  country,  he  turned 
his  back  upon  bright  and  attracting  prospects,  and  voluntarily  re- 
linquished many  advantages  wliich  he  could  not  here  enjoy.  And 
notwithstanding  a  debt  of  gratitude,  at  least,  is  due  from  him  to  a 
portion  of  the  Presbyterian  church,  there  is  no  sect  that  has,  per- 
haps, shared  so  hbcrally  in  the  abuse  and  slander  with  which  his 
writings  and  public  harangues  abound- 

NoTE  C. — page  rs. 

The  gross  absurdity  as  well  as  unscriptural  character  of  Mr.  Camp- 
-fceli's  position,  (upon  which  he  frequently  harps,  both  in  his  writings 
and  pubhc  addresses.)  tliat  faith  consists  in  the  belief  of  facts,  and  not 
doctrines,  was  farther,  in  this  part  of  the  debate  attempted  to  be  shown, 
from  the  utter  impossibility  of  separating  the  latter  from  the  former. 
It  indeed  must  be  evident  to  every  reflecting  mind,  that  if  a  person  even 
historically  believes  the  facts  narrated  in  the  New  Testament,  he  will, 
•or,  to  speak  more  definitely,  he  must  therewith  receive  or  imbibe  cer- 
tain  doctrines  or  sentiments,  concerning  the  nature  and  design  of  the 
Christian  religion,  as  also  concerning  the  nature  and  true  character  of 
its  great  Author.  It  does  not,  however,  necessarily  follow,  that  every 
historical  believer  will  receive  or  embrace,  even  speculatively^  the  sys. 
tern  of  trutli  or  form  of  doctrine"  contained  in  the  New  Testament. 
For  as  it  was  in  tlie  days  of  the  Apostles,  so  it  is  yet,  "there  be  some 
tliat  trouble"  the  church  of  God,  "  and  would  pervert  the  gospel  of 
Christ."  Hence  tliose  holy  and  inspired  men,  in  their  writings,  speak 
of  "  good  doctrine,"  of"  sound  doctrine,"  and  of  "  the  doctrine  that  is 
according  to  godliness."  On  the  other  hand,  they  speak  of  those  who 
hold  "  the  doctrine  of  Balaam;"  of  others  who  maintained  '*  the  doc- 
trines of  the  Nicolaitans;"  and  of  those  also,  who,  in  the  latter  times, 
should  "  depart  from  the  faith  giving  heed  to  seducing  spirits,  (or  false 
teachers,)  and  doctrines  of  devils." 

We  may  therefore  see  how  fallacious,  as  well  as  destructive,  is  the 
£»tion,  tliat  it  is  a  matter  of  small  moment  what  may  be  the  system  of 


248 


APPENDIX. 


doctrines  which  a  man  may  adopt  or  receive,  provided,  only,  he  is  sin. 
cere  in  his  belief  of  them,  as  being  true  and  taken  or  deduced  (as  he 
supposes)  from  the  w^ord  of  God.  On  the  contrary,  it  is  of  vital  impor- 
tance, that  with  the  belief  of  the  gospel  facts,  we  cordially  receive,  and 
from  the  heart,  not  only  obey,  but  abide  in  the  true  doctrine  of  Christ; 
and  be  not  "  carried  about  by  every  wind  of  doctrine,  by  the  slight  of 
men  and  cunning  craftiness  whereby  they  lie  in  wait  to  deceive."  It  is 
of  vital  importance,  because  it  is  "  the  form  of  doctrine"  which  any  one 
receives  and  obeys  "  from  the  heart,"  rather  than  the  belief  of  the  gos- 
pel history,  that  constitutes  such  a  person  a  true  follower  of  Christ.  If 
a  man  truly  receives  and  obeys  his  doctrine,  it  will,  through  the  power 
ajid  grace  of  his  Spirit,  which  works  in  all  true  believers  (as  in  the 
Apostle  to  the  Gentiles)  mightily,  have  a  purifying  and  saving  effect 
upon  the  soul.  Thus  a  sinner,  through  obedience  of  the  truth,  receives, 
in  a  measure,  the  same  mind  that  was  in  Christ;  and  his  Spirit,  without 
which  he  could  be  none  of  his.  We  accordingly  hear  the  apostle  Peter 
addressing  true  believers,  as  those  who  had  purified  their  "  souls  ia 
obeying  the  truth,  through  the  Spirit,  unto  unfeigned  love  of  the 
brethren." 

Whilst  it  is .  the  peculiar  characteristic  of  every  true  Christian, — 
whereby  he  is  especially  distinguished,  not  only  from  the  sceptic  and 
the  infidel;  but  also  from  the  nominal,  or,  which  is  substantially  the 
same,  the  historical  believer, — that  he  obeys  "  from  the  heart  that  form 
of  doctrine"  contained  in  the  word  of  God;  it  is  not  intended  here  to 
assert  that  every,  or  indeed  that  any  such  true  Cinistian,  receives  or 
embraces  every  tittle  of  that  system  of  truth  which  the  scriptures  con- 
tain. This,  however,  does  rot  nvise  from  the  want  of  a  disposition  to 
embrace  tlic  whole  system:  but  ili rough  remaining  infirmity,  he  may 
not  u  yet  be  able  to  discover  that  system  in  all  its  parts,  or  by  reason 
of  the  imperfection  of  that  spiritual  discernment  with  which  he  is  en- 
dued, r!«  a  consequence  of  havijig  passed  from  a  state  of  spiritual  death 
to  that  of  spiritual  life,  lie  is  not  <ihie  perfectly,  in  all  things,  to  discriin- 
inate  between  truth  and  error.  But  if  a  person  be  a  Christian,  not 
merely  in  name  but  in^^'d  and  in  truth,  it  follows  of  necessity  that  he 
must  have,  cordially,  ana  with  his  whole  heart,  received  tlie  great  and 
leading  doctrines  of  the  gospel  as  the  precious  trutli  of  God.  For  such 
as  are  indeed  saints,  are  chosen  to  salvation,  (2  Thess.  2:13,)  not  only 
"through  sanctification  of  the  Spirit,"  but  "the  belief  of  the  truth." 

It  is,  then,  evident,  that  tliis  part  of  the  sclienie  of  Mr.  C.  is  not  only 
as  absurd  as  it  is  unscriptural,  but  that  the  belief  simply  of  the  facts  of 
the  gospel,  were  it  possible  to  separate  them  from  the  precious  doctrines 
with  which  they  are  connected,  would  be  )io  more  calculated  to  sustain 
a  principle  of  spiritual  life  in  the  soul,  or  to  nourish  the  church  of  God,* 
than  would  the  bones  of  the  paschal  lamb,  stripped  of  all  their  flesh, 
have  been  calculated  to  satisfy  the  hunger  or  increase  the  strength  of 
the  Israeiitish  families  who  by  divine  command,  and  at  stated  seasons, 

*  The  Apostle  assures  Timothy,  (1  Tim.  13:  6,)  that  if  he  put  the 
brethren  in  mind  of  certain  things  concerning  which  he  had  given  him 
charge,  he  should  be  not  only  "  a  good  minister  of  Jesus  Christ,"  but  be 
also  "  nourished  up  in  the  words  of  fnith  and  of  good  doctrine,"  where- 
unto  he  had  attained. 


APPENDIX. 


249 


partook  of  the  feast  of  the  passover.  And  indeed  it  may,  with  empha- 
sis, be  asked  whether  the  whole  system  of  Mr.  Campbell's  theology,  so 
far  as  he  has  thoug-lit  proper  to  disclose  it,  is  not  to  the  soul  that  really 
hungers  for  the  bread  of  hfe,  what  a  mess  of  bones  would  be  to  a  man 
ready  to  die  for  the  want  of  food? — a  mere  mockery  I 

Note  D. — page  40. 

Mr.  C.  professes  to  believe  immersion  for  the  remission  of  sins  to  be 
all-important,  not  only  as  he  holds  this  to  be  the  only  mode  of  obtaining 
pardon,  but  that  "  the  blood  of  Jesus  Christ"  doth  not  "  cleanse  us  from 
all  sin,"  as  the  apostle  John  has  taught  us,  (1  John  1:  7,)  imless  it  be 
washed  away  in  water  by  immersion. 

As  this  note,  by  the  deceased  author,  was  not  completed,  some 
extracts  from  the  pamphlet  of  the  Rev.  Andrew  Broaddus,  of  the  Baptist 
denomination,  in  which  he  replies  to  "Mr.  A.  CamphelVs  Millennial 
Harbinger,  Extra,  on  the  remission  of  sins"  are  added,  as  suitably  fill- 
ing up  this  note,  and  clearly  refuting  the  interpretation  which  Mr.  C. 
gives  to  certain  passages  of  the  sacred  Scriptures  to  prove  that  what  he 
calls  "  an  act  of  faith,''''  (viz.  immersion,)  "  and  not  faith  itself,  changes 
our  state."  Though  we  cannot  extract  all  of  Mr.  Broaddus'  remarks  on 
the  passages  adduced  by  Mr.C,  we  hope  we  shall  do  his  able  production 
no  injustice  by  the  following  extracts.  Mr.  B.  says:  "  The  first  passage 
brought  forward  for  this  purpose,"  (to  prove  that  remission  of  sins  is  by 
immersion)  "  is  the  answer  of  Peter  to  his  convicted  hearers,  on  the 
day  of  Pentecost.  '  Tlicy  v/ere  informed  (says  ^Ir.  Campbell)  that 
though  they  now  believed  and  repented,  they  were  not  pardoned;  but 
must  reform  and  be  immersed  for  the  remission  of  sins.^  And  '  this 
tesiimony,  when  the  speaker,  the  occasion,  and  the  congregation,  are 
all  taken  into  view,  is  itself,  (Mr.  C.  thinks,)  alone  sufficient  to  establish 
the  point:'  p.  14.     We  think  not. 

"  Now,  as  respecting  the  testimony  that  faith  is  the  instrument  of 
justification,  it  appears  (we  must  think)  not  only  direct  and  explicit, 
but,  withal,  incapable  of  being  made  to  yield  to  3Ir.  C.'s  interpretation. 
Review  some  of  this  evidence.  '  Verily,  verily,  I  say  unto  you,  he  that 
believeth  on  me  ?mth  everlasting  life.'  This  divine  blessing  is  coetane- 
ous,  coexistent  with  faith;  and  no  medium,  no  bodily  act  is  interposed. — 
'  By  him  all  that  believe  are  justified  from  all  things.'  It  is  not  said 
they  shall  be,  or  may  bojustifli^d  through  some  other  medium. — '  Abra- 
ham believed  God,  and  it  was  counted  to  him  for  righteousness.'  Is 
tliis  example  produced  by  the  Apostle,  to  show  that  there  was  some 
bodily  act  interposed  as  the  medium?  Rather,  toehowthat  there  was 
not:  See  Rom.  4:1 — 10.  In  these  testimonies  all  bodily  acts,  considered 
as  media  between  faith  and  the  blessing  of  justification,  are  not  only 
omitted,  but  excluded:  nor  can  any  person  find  room  to  interpose  any 
such  act,  as  a  medium  through  which  the  blessing  is  conveyed. 

"  With  respect  to  the  passages  of  Scripture  brought  forward  by  Mr. 
C,  whatever  favorable  aspect  some  of  them  may  seem  to  wear  towards 
his  theory,  we  are  well  persuaded  that  they  are  capable  of  a  fair  and 
rational  interpretation,  in  perfect  consistence  with  the  actual  justifica- 
tion of  the  soul  by  faith.  0°  And  be  it  observed,  that  where  a  point 
has  been  established  by  explicit  testimony, — testimony  that  cannot  be 
made  to  yield  to  a  different  construction;  in  such  a  case,  no  apparently 


250 


APPENDIX. 


contravening-  matter,  capable  of  a  rational  construction  consistent  with 
such  testimony,  ought  to  be  brought  forward,  for  the  purpose  of  estab- 
lishing a  contrary  fact.  This  is  a  canon  of  interpretation,  the  soimdness 
of  whicli,  I  think  neither  Mr.  C.  nor  any  person  exercising  candor,  will 
attempt  to  controvert. 

"For  a  more  full  elucidation  of  this  matter,  (says  Mr.  Broaddus,)  I 
offer  the  following  remarks;  which  though  rather  of  a  more  critical 
character  than  the  general  tenor  of  this  work,  will  be  found,  it  is  hoped, 
sufficiently  plain  for  the  comprehension  of  most  readers. 

"John  did — preach  the  baptism  of  repentance /or  the  remission  of 
sins." — "Be  baptized/or  the  remission  of  sins.''' 

"  Mr.  Campbell  knows  (and  every  G:eek  scholar  knows)  that  the  pre- 
position Eis,  here  rendered /or,  might,  with  equal  propriety  be  rendered 
into,  in  several  places  where  a  different  English  word  occurs  in  tlie 
translation; — into  being,  indeed,  its  primary  signification.  Thus,  to 
mention  only  a  few  instances:  Matth.  3:11.  "  I  indeed  baptize  you  (en 
UDATi)  in  water,  (eis  metanoian)  into  repentance."  1  Cor.  10: 2.  "And 
were  all  baptized  (eis  ton  Mosen)  into  Moses,'  &c.  In  Romans  6.3. 
the  preposition,  in  a  similar  connection,  is  rendered  into :  '  Know  ye 
not  that  so  many  of  us  as  were  baptized  (eis  Christon  Iesoun)  into  Je- 
sus Christ,'  Sec.  Mark  1:4.  '  John  did— preach  the  baptism  of  re- 
pentance (eis)  into  the  remission  of  sins.'  And  lastly,  this  passage, 
where  the  same  expression  occurs  :  Acts  2:38.  '  Repent,  and  be  bap- 
tized,' &c.  (eis)  '  into  the  remission  of  sins.'  Now  these  expressions 
give  rise  to  a  few  remarks. 

"  When  it  is  said,  '  I  baptize  j'ou  into  repentance;'  we  do  not  vmde»- 
stand  that  repentance  was  actually  produced  or  brought  about  by  bap- 
tism; but  that  the  people  were  baptized  into  the  doctrine  and  profession 
of  repentance  So,  when  the  expression  occurs,  'be  baptized  into  the 
remission  of  sins:'  let  us  not  understand  th.atthe  disciples  realhj  ohtainrA 
the  blessing  of  pardon  by  this  act;  but  that  they  were  baptized  into  tlie 
profession  of  this  glorious  truth. 

"  Our  author's  second  appeal  for  evidence  (p.  14.)  is  to  Peter's  second 
discourse — '  pronounced  in  Solomon's  portico;  Acts  3: 19.  '  Repent  and 
be  converted,  that  your  sins  may  blotted  out,'  '  &c.  Much  ingenuity  is 
here  displaj-ed,  in  accommodating  these  expressions  of  Peter  to  the  idea 
which  we  have  been  considering;  and  the  tact  of  the  writer  (as  our  poli- 
ticians say)  certainly  cannot  be  denied.  He  considers  immersion  and 
conversion  to  be  t)ie  same  tiling:  consequently,  that  when  Peter  enjoined 
on  his  hearerfe  to  he  converted,  he  meant,  that  they  should  be  baptized; 
and  so  the  blessing  is  attached,  as  on  the  day  of  Pentecost;  there  it 
was  "for  the  remission  ofsins:"  here,  "  that  your  sins  may  be  blotted  out," 
That  baptism  was  considered  as  attached  to  the  character  of  the  convert- 
ed, we  do  not  deny;  but  that  conversion  is  to  be  identified  with  baptism, 
we  cannot  allow;  and  we  think  it  will  presently  appeal-,  from  one  of  Mr. 
C's  own  testimonies,  that  this  is  not  the  case. 

"  In  the  next  quotation  (p.  15.)  produced  in  favor  of  this  point,  it  would 
puzzle  the  reader,  metliinks,  without  the  help  of  Mr.  C.  to  find  the  seixk- 
blance  of  evidence;  though  he  thinks  (and  what  may  a  man  not  think, 
when  his  heart  is  set  for  it?) — he  thinks  it  "  a  very  strong  expression, 
declarative  of  the  same  gracious  connection  between  immersion  and 
remission."    It  is  found  in  the  close  of  the  same  discourse;  and  hepe  it 


APPENDIX. 


251 


is!  •*  Hnto  yon  fir.st,  God  having  raised  up  his  son  Jesus,  sent  Mm  to 
bless  you,  in  turning-  away  every  one  of  you  from  his  iniquities."  Mr. 
C.  renders  it — "  sent  him  to  bless  you,  every  one  of  you,  in  the  act  of 
turning  from  your  iniquities;"  and  adds,  "or,  as  we  would  say,  in  the  act 
of  conversion."  Well!  (not  to  be  tedious  :)  "  turning  from  iniquities," 
or  "tJie  act  of  conversion,"  it  seems,  is  baptism;  and  thus  they  were 
to  be  blessed  in  tiie  act  ofimmersion!  The  Jews  "  knew  that  the  disci- 
ples called  the  immersed  converted;^^^'  and  of  course,  itseems,  understood 
them  as  meaning  immersion,  whenever  they  spoke  of  turning  from  ini- 
quity— turning  to  the  Lord,  or  being  converted. 

"  The  fourth  testimony  brought  forward  by  our  author,  (p.  15.)  proves, 
I  think,  to  be  truly  unfortunate  for  his  cause.  Acts  26: 17,18.  "  I  send 
thee,  Paul,  to  the  Gentiles,  to  open  their  eyes,  and  to  turn  (or  convert) 
them  from  darkness  to  light,  and  Irom  the  power  of  Satan  to  God,  that 
they  may  receive  forgiveness  of  sins,  and  inheritance  among  them  that 
are  sanctified."  Here  again  we  find  an  ingenious  accommodation. 
**  First,  faith  or  illumination;  then,  conversion;"  (meaning  baptism) 
**  then,  remission  of  sins;  then,  the  inheritance."  But  alas!  it  happens, 
in  the  main  point,  not  to  agree  with  Paul's  own  view  of  the  case.  "  To 
turn  or  convert  them  from  darkness  to  light,"  &c.  that  is  (it  seems)  to 
baptize  them.  And  so  Paul  was  sent  to  baptize  the  Gentiles.  But  did 
the  Apostle  himself  so  understand  the  matter?  Let  us  hear  him,  1  Cor. 
1: 17.  "Christ  sent  me  not  to  baptize,  but  to  preach  the  gospel."  Paul 
was  sent,  then,  to  turn  the  Gentiles  from  darkness  to  light,  by  preaching 
the  gospel.  It  is  thus  they  were  to  be  converted,  and  then  baptism  fol- 
lows. And  this  (as  we  shall  see  presently)  accords  with  the  tenor  of 
the  commission.    Conversion  then,  is  not  the  same  thing  with  baptism. 

"We  now  come  (p.  16.)  to  the  commission.  Matt.  28:19,20.  "Go  yo 
tliei-efore,  and  teach  all  nations — or  disciple  all  nations — or  conr>ert  all 
nations — baptizing  them  into  the  name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and 
of  tlic  Holy  Spirit;  teaching  them  to  observe  all  things,"  &.c.  This 
passage  having  been  of  late  so  canvassed,  with  criticism  upon  critieisHi, 
I  shall  here  tax  the  reader's  patience  very  slightly. 

"  Mr.  C.  is  almost  willing,  I  think,  to  admit,  that  the  grammatical  con- 
struction of  the  sentence  does  not  really  require  that  we  should  consider 
baptism  as  the  act  by  which  the  nations  were  to  be  discipled  or  converted; 
•*  convert  the  nations  by  baptizing  them;"  and  to  me,  I  must  say,  there 
appears  to  be  no  evidence  in  favor  of  such  a  construction  or  interpreta- 
tion. Dr.  George  Campbell's  view  of  the  grammatical  meaning  of 
the  passage,  appears  to  commend  itself  to  the  understanding.  In  sub- 
stance it  is  this: — that  there  are  here  tln-ee  things  distinctly  enjoined, 
viz :  to  convert  the  nations — to  baptize  the  converted — and  to  insiruct 
the  baptized.  My  friend's  attempt  to  make  Dr.  Campbell  speak  bis 
language,  (see  p.  25,26.)  is  .  an  instance  of  disingenuousnesa  which  I 
was  sorry  to  see." 

Note  E. — page  82. 
The  Editor  of  this  book  adds  the  concluding  note  on  the  subject  of 
the  late  connection  of  Mr.  C.'s  sect  with  the  sect  who  have  assumed  the 
*itle  of  Christians.  They  deny  the  trinity  of  persons  in  the  Godhead, 
and  the  divinity  and  coequality  of  the  Son  of  God,  with  the  Father,  or 
hold  them  in  such  a  light,  that  they  arc  similar  to  Unitarians,  and  in 
some  instances  more  resemble  Arians. 


*  Tins  might  be;  and  yet  conversion  and  immersion  nut  identical. 


252 


APPENDIX. 


"  Christians,"  (says  Mr.  Bush,  in  his  article  in  the  new  edition  of 
Buck's  Theological  Dictionary,  when  there  was  no  bias  inclining  to 
injustice,  is)  "  a  name  assumed  by  a  religious  sect  foj  med  in  diflerent 
parts  of  the  United  States,  though  not  in  great  numbers,  nor  of  a  uniibrm 
faith,  differing  but  little  from  the  general  body  of  Unitarians.  They 
deny  in  the  main  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  and  that  of  a  vicarious 
atonement." 

In  the  3d  volume,  3d  number  of  tlie  "Millennial  Harbinger,"  Mr. 
Campbell  makes  the  following  extract  from  the  "  Christian  Messenger," 
edited  by  his  "  Christian"  brethren,  Barton  W.  Stone,  and  J.  T.John- 
ston. Say  these  Editors,  "  We  are  happy  to  announce  to  our  brethren, 
and  to  tlie  world,  the  union  of  Christians  in  factin  our  own  country.  A 
few  months  ago  the  reforming  Baptists,  (known  invidiously  by  the  name 
of  Campbellites,)  and  the  Christians,  in  Georgetown  and  the  neighbor- 
hood, agreed  to  meet  and  worship  together.  We  soon  found  that  we 
•were  indeed  in  the  same  spirit,  on  the  same  foundation,  the  New  Testa- 
ment, and  wore  the  same  name,  Christian.  We  saw  no  reason  why  we 
should  not  be  the  same  family ^ 

"  To  increase  and  consolidate  this  union,  and  to  convince  all  of  our 
sincerity,  we,  the  elders  and  brethren,  have  separated  two  elders,  John 
Smith  and  John  Rodgers,  the  first  known,  formerly,  by  the  name  of 
Reformer,  the  latter  by  the  name  Christian.  These  brethren  are  to  ride 
together  through  all  the  churches,  and  to  be  equally  supported  by  the 
united  contributions  of  the  churches  of  both  descriptions." 

Thus  said  the  editors,  who  were,  when  they  found  they  were  "  on  the 
same  foundation"  with  the  Campbellites,  Christians,  of  the  Unitarian  or 
Arian  stamp.  But  a  union  being  formed,  John  Smith,  one  of  the  Bi- 
shop's Reformers,  and  John  Rodgers  a  "  Christian,"  are  sent  out  "  to 
ride  together  through  all  the  churches,"  "to  increase  and  consolidate  this 
union,  and  to  convince  all  of  our  [their]  sincerity."  This  is  quite  a  re- 
forming business  of  these  united  Arians,  to  ride  through  all  the  churches, 
declaiming,  (as  is  the  custom  of  each  of  these  sects,)  against  salaries, 
and  missionary  contributions,  with  virulence,  while  each  of  them  is 
"  to  be  equally  supported  by  the  united  Contributions  of  the  churches." 
This  is  similar  to  the  Reformer,  Mr.  Scott,  in  this  section  of  the  coun- 
try, who  has  made  himself  famous  for  his  foaming  against  "  the  hire- 
lings;"  while  at  the  same  time,  as  a  speaker  of  the  sect  informed  the 
writer,  he  was  paid  by  an  association. 

But  there  is  no  doubt  about  the  union  spoken  of  above.  The  Bishop 
expresses  his  gratification  at  it  in  the  same  number  of  iiis  Harbinger. 
He  says,  "  From  numerous  letters  received  from  Kentucky,  we  are 
pleased  to  learn  that  brethren  Smith,  Stone,  Rodgers,  and  others  ....  now 
go  for  the  apostolic  institutions,"  alias,  his  "  ancient  gospel."  Tlie  con- 
clusion, therefore,  from  the  preceding  is  irresitible,  that  as  Unitarians 
and  Anti-Trinitarians,  is  the  defuiition  of  the  sect  called  Christians;  and 
since  tlie  Reformers,  (Campbellites,)  are  on  "  the  same  foundation"  with 
the  "  Christians,''^  that  they  are  both  Unitarians  or  Anti-Trinitarians. 
Some  of  whom  are  properly  called  Arians.  The  conclusion  is  as  plain, 
as  that  two  things  that  are  each  equal  to  the  same  thing,  are  equal  to 
one  another.  Thus,  too,  Herod  and  Pontius  Pilate,  Campbellites  and 
Christians  are  "gathered  togetbar,"  and  degrade  the  exalted  Saviour, 
Vw'ho  has  said,  referring  to  his  divinity,  "  /,  and  my  Father  are  one," 
who,  also,  is  "  God  ovkr  all,  blessed Jfor ever. 


DATE  DUE 



DEMCO  38-297 

